Skip to main content

Full text of "Socrates and the Socratic Schools"

See other formats

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http : //books . google . com/ 


> _^^ * * 

« ** 

r> J* 


f^-% ^ 





l^arbarli College iiirarg 


the estate of 
Professor E. W. GURNEY 

(Class of 1853) 

Received -ifS^May, 189a. 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


t^ ' ^ 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 













in rightt rtierttd Digitized by GoOglC 


/ iP 

iiarvard College Library, 
// 22 May, 1C90. 

From the Library of 

PROP. E. W. GUiCNiiJx, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


In oflfering to the English reader a new edition of 
that part of Dr Zellbr's Philosophie der Oriechen 
which treats of Socrates and the imperfect Socratic 
Schools, the translator is not unaware of the diflB- 
culties of the task which he has undertaken. For if, 
on the one hand, such a translation he too literal, the 
reader may find it more difficult to understand than 
the original, and expend a labour in disentangling 
the thread of a sentence which were better spent in 
grasping its meaning. If, on the other hand, too 
much freedom be allowed, the charge may be justly 
preferred, that the rendering does not faithfully re- 
present the original. The present translator has en- 
deavoured to steer a middle course between these 
•two extremes, aiming at reproducing the meaning of 
Dr Zellbr's work, whilst reducing the sentences, 
where it seemed necessary, by breaking them up. In 
order to avoid inaccuracies, he has once more care- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


fully gone over the whole, so that what is now offered 
as a second edition is really a new translation from 
the third Grerman edition. 

The writer is well aware how imperfectly he has 
been able to realise his own standard of excellence ; 
but believing that there is a large class of students 
who find it a work of toil to read Dr Zellek's work 
in the original, he submits this attempt to meet 
their wants, soliciting for it a gentle criticism. 


May, 1877. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 








INTRODUCTION. The problem proposed to philosophy , 2 

A. The problem solved by political events 

1. Political misettledness 2 

2. Athens a centre of union 3 

B. The problem solved by literature — 

1. The Tragedians, ^schylus— Sophocles — Euri- 

pides 4 

2. Didactic Poetry. Simonides — Bacchylides — Pin- 

dar . . . , • 21 

3. The Historians. Herodotus — Thucydides . . 24 

4. Comedy. Aristophanes 29 

C. The problem solved by new forms of religious worship . 32 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





A. Distinction of Socratic from pre-Socratic Philosophy . 38 

1. Knowledge substituted for tradition . . . 38 

2. Study of conceptions substituted for study of 

nattfre 39 

B. Importance of the doctrine of conceptions . . .40 

1. Definition of a conception 41 

2. Theory of conceptions expanded . . . .42 

C. Distinction of Socratic from post- Aristotelian Philosophy 43 

1. Knowledge believed to be possible . . . . 44 

2. Morality not pursued independently . . .46 

D. The Socratic Philosophy developed — 

1. Socrates 47 

2. Plato 48 

3. Aristotle 49 

4. Difficulty caused by Socratic Schools . .50 




A. Youth and early training 62 

B. Active life 61 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





A. Greatness of the character of Socrates .... 70 

B. Greek peculiarities in his character 74 

C. Prominent features in his character . . .77 

D. The Z(un6viov 82 

1. False views of the haiyu&viov 82 

2. Kegarded by Socrates as an oracle . . . 84 

3. Limited in its application 90 

4. Correct view of the ZaitL6viov . • . 94 



( A. Xenophon and Plato considered as authorities . . 98_ 

B. General point of view of Socrates 104 

C. Theory of knowledge of conceptions considered . 109 

D. Moral value of this theory . . .' . . . 113 
B. Its subjective character 116 


A B^nowledge of ignorance the first step . . . . 121 

B. Search for knowledge the next — Eros and 

Irony 124 

C. Formation of conceptions the third step • • .128 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





A. The subject-matter restricted to Ethics . , . . 134 

B, Virtue is knowledge — ^the leading thought of the 

Socratic Ethics . » • • • » 140 

0. The Good and Eudaemonism — 

1. Theoretically Virtue is knowledge about the Good 147 

2. Practically the Grood determined by custom or 

utility 148 

3. Inconsistency of Socratic Morality . . , 161 

D. Particular Moral Relations — .*.... 160 

1. Personal independence 161 

2. Friendship 163 

3. The State 166 

4. Universal philanthropy 170 



A. View of Nature 172 

B. Notion of God and the Worship of God . , . . 175 

1. Language about the GK)ds taken from popular use . 175 

2. God conceived as the Beason of the world . . 176 

3. The Worship of God 177 

C. Dignity and Immortality of man 178 



V A. Value of Xenophon as an authority — 

1. Xenophon in harmony with Plato and Aristotle . JLi^ 

2. Schleiermacher's objections refuted . . . 183 

B. Importance of Socrates for the age in which he lived . 185 

C. Belation of Socrates to the Sophists 187 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 






A. Circmnstances connected with his trial and death— 

1. The Accusation 193 

2. The Defence 196 

3. The Sentence 198 

4. His Death 200 

B. Causes which led to his sentence ..... 202 

1. The Sophists innocent 202 

2. Personal animosity only partially the cause . . 205 

3. Political party-feeling only partially involved , 210 

4. The teaching of Socrates generally believed to be 

dangerous . . , 213 

C. Justification of the sentence • 220 

1. Unfounded charges brought against Socrates . . 220 

2. The views of Socrates subversive of old views of 

authority— political life — religion . . . 226 

3. Relation borne by his views to cotemporary views 231 

4. Result of his death ....... 235 





A. School of Socrates 236 

« B. Xenophon 239 

C. ^schines 245 

D. Simmias and Cebes . . ' 246 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




The Megarians— 

A. History of the School . . . . . . . 249 

B. Their Doctrine ........ 266 

1. Being and Becoming 269 

2. The Good 262 

C. Eristic 264 

1. Euclid 266 

2. Eubulides 268 

3. Alexinns . . 268 

4. ' Diodoms on Motion — Destruction — the Possible 269 
6. Philo. The Possible— Hypothetical sentences — 

Meaning of words 273 

6. Stilpo. Subject and Predicate — the Gk)od — Cynic 

Morality 276 

The Elean-Eretrian School. 

A. History of the School 279 

B. Doctrine of the School 281 



A. History of the Cynics 284 

B. Teaching of the Cynics 291 

1. Depreciation of theoretical knowledge . . 291 

2. Logic 295 

G. Cynic theory of Morality — 301 

1. Negative conditions — Gk)od and Evil . . soi 

2. Positive side— Virtue 310 

3. Wisdom and Folly 313 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



D. Practical results of Cynic teaching 314 

1. 'R^nnm^tflOT' "^ Sfllf 316 

2. ReniTjariatioi Lpf Society. Family Life— Civil Life 

— Modesty 319 

3. Renunciation of Religion 327 

B. Cynic influence on Society 331 



A. History of the Cyrenaics 337 

B. Teaching of the Cyrenaics 344 

1. General position 346 

2. Feelings the only object of knowledge . . . 347 

3. Pleasure and pain 352 

4. The Highest Good 354 

5. Modified form of the extreme view . . . 356 

C. Practical Life of the Cyrenaics 361 

D. Relation of their teaching to Socrates .... 369 

1. Relation of their philosophy 369 

2. Points of resemblance 375 

B- The later Cyrenaics 376 

1. Theodorus 376 

2. Hegesias 380 

3. Anniceris 383 



A. Inconsistencies of the imperfect Socratic Schools . . 386 

B. These Schools more closely related to Socrates than to 

the Sophists 387 

C. Importance of these Schools 389 

JXDBX 393 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 





The intellectual life of Greece had reached a point Chap. 

towards the close of the fifth century, in which the ^ 

choice lay before it of either giving up philosophy 
altogether, or attempting a thorough transformation 
upon a new basis. The older schools were not indeed 
wholly extinct ; but all dependence in their systems 
bad been shaken, and a general disposition to doubt 
had set in. From the Sophists men had learnt to 
call everything in question — to attack or defend 
with equal readiness every opinion. Belief in the 
truth of human ideas, or in the validity of moral 
laws, had been lost. Not only enquiries respecting 
nature, which had engaged the attention of thinkers 
for upwards of a century and a half, had become 
distasteful, but even philosophy itself had given 
place to a mere superficial facility of thought and 
expression and the acquisition of attainments useful 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 



in the fifth 

A. The 
solved by 

(1) Po- 

only for the purposeB of social life. Yet this state 
of things naturally suggested the need of a new 
method, which wohM avoid the defects and one- 
sidedness of previous systems by a more cautious 
treatment of scientific questions. The way thereto 
had not only been indirectly prepared by the clear- 
ing away of previous speculation, but the very 
instrument of research had been sharpened by the 
quibbles and subtleties of sophistry ; ample material, 
too, for the erection of a new structure lay to hand 
in the labours of preceding philosophers. Moreover, 
by the practical turn which the Sophistic enquiries 
had taken, a new field of research was opened up, the 
more careful cultivation of which gave promise of a 
rich harvest for speculative philosophy. Would a 
creative genius be forthcoming, able to make use of 
these materials, and to direct thought into a new 
channel? Before this question Greek philosophy 
stood at the time when Socrates appeared. 

The answer was determined in great part by the 
course which political circumstances, moral life, and 
general culture had taken. Between these and philo- 
sophy the connection is at all times close ; yet lately, 
in the case of the Sophistic teaching, it had been 
more than ever apparent. The most sweeping 
changes had taken place in the fifth century in 
Greece. Never has a nation had a more rapid or 
more brilliant career of military glory in union with 
high culture than had the Greeks. Yet never has 
that career been sooner over. First came the great 
deeds of- the Persian war, then the rich bloom of art 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


of the age of Pericles ; following immediately that Chap. 
internal conflict which wasted the strength and 
prosperity of the free states of Greece in imhallowed 
domestic quarrels, which sacrificed anew the indepen- 
dence so hardly won from the foreigner, midermined 
her freedom, threw her moral notions into confusion, 
and irretrievably rained the character of her people. 
A progress which elsewhere required centuries was in 
her case compressed within a few generations. When 
the pulse of national life beats so fast, the general 
spirit must be exposed to a quick and susceptible 
change ; and when so much that is great happens in 
so short a time, an abundance of ideas is sure to crop 
up, awaiting only a regulating hand to range them- 
selves into scientific systems. 

Of greatest importance for the future of philo- (2) AtJiens 
sophy was the position won by Athens since the close uniarJ^a/i^ 
of the Persian war. In that great conflict the con- «^«**^%- 
sciousness of a common brotherhood had dawned 
upon the Hellenes with a force imknown before. 
All that fancy had painted in the legend of the 
Trojan war seemed to be realised in actual history : 
Hellas standing as a united nation opposed to the 
East. The headship of this many-membered body 
had fallen in the main to Athens, and herewith that 
city had become the centre of all intellectual move- 
ments, Hhe Prytaneum of the wisdom of Greece.' * 
This circumstance had a most beneficial eflTect on 
the further development of philosophy. No doubt a 

» So called by Hippias in Plato, Prot. 337, D, 
B 2 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, tendency may be noticed in the several schools to come 
' forth from their isolation ; it maybe seen in the natural 
philosophers of the fifth century that an active inter- 
change of thought was being carried on between the 
East and theWest of Ghreece ; and now that the Sophists 
had begun to travel from one end to the other of the 
Hellenic world, to carry to Thessaly the eloquence of 
Sicily, to Sicily the doctrines of Heraclitus, these 
various sources of culture could not fail gradually to 
flow together into one mighty stream. Still it was of 
great importance that a solid bed should be hollowed 
out for this stream and its course directed towards a 
fixed end. This result was brought about by the rise 
of the Attic philosophy. After that, in Athens, as 
the common centre of the Grecian world, the various 
lines of pre-Socratic enquiry had met and crossed, 
Socrates was able to found a more comprehensive 
philosophy; and ever afterwards Greek philosophy 
continued to be so firmly tied to Athens, that down 
to the time of the New Academy that city was the 
birthplace of all schools historically important. It 
was even their last place of refuge before the final 
extinction of ancient philosophy. 
B. The To make clear, by means of the literary remains 

problem ^fe possess, the change which took place in the Greek 
literatv/re, mode of thought during the fifth century, and to 
estimate the worth and extent of the contributions 
(1) The yielded to philosophy by the general culture of the 
^^^" time, the great Athenian tragedians may be first 
appealed to. For tragedy is better suited than any 
other kind of poetry to arouse ethical reflection, to 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


pourtray the moral consciousness of a people, and to Chap. 

express the highest sentiments of which an age, or ;_ 

at least individual prominent spirits in an age^ are 
capable. Every deeper tragic plot rests on the con- 
flicting calls of duty and interest. To make clear 
the origin of the plot, to imfold the action psycho- 
logically, to produce the general impression intended, 
the poet must bring these two points of view before us, 
allowing each to advocate its cause in lively speech 
and counter-speech : he must go into the analysis of 
moral consciousness, weigh what is right and what is 
faulty in human action, and expose it to view. As 
a poet he will do this, always having regard to tlie 
particular case before him. StiU, even this he cannot 
do without comparing one case with another, without 
going back to general experience, to the generally 
received notions respecting right and wrong — in 
short, to general moral conceptions. Hence tragic 
poetry must always give a lasting impetus to scien- 
tific speculation on moral conduct and its laws, 
affording, too, for such reflection ample material 
itself, and that to a certain extent abeady prepared, 
and inviting partly use, partly correction.^ Moreover, 
inasmuch as moral convictions were in the case of 
the Greeks, as in the case of other nations, originally 
bound up with religious convictions, and inasmuch 
as this connection particularly affects tragedy owing 
to the legendary subjects with which it deals, it 

* On this point compare the vol. viii. 137, ed. 1870 ; vol. 
excellent remarks of Grate, vii. 7, ed. 1872. 
Hist, of Greece, P. II. c. 67, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, follows that all that has been said respecting the 

J connection between tragedy and principles of morality 

applies also to the connection between tragedy and 
principles of theology: nay more, in exactly the 
same way tragedy must busy itself with the nature 
and state of men whose deeds and fate it depicts. 
In all these respects a most decided and thorough 
change in Ghreek thought may be observed in the 
three generations, whose character finds such fit- 
ting expression in the three successive tragedians, 
iEschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides. Without going 
so far as to attribute to the poets themselves every 
word which they put iilto the mouths of their heroes, 
still the general tone of their sentiments may be 
gathered partly from their general treatment of the 
materials, partly from their individual utterances, 
with no lack of certainty. 
(a) JEs' In iEschylus there is an earnestness of purpose, a 

depth of religious feeling, an overwhelming force and 
majesty, worthy of a man of ancient virtue, who had 
himself taken part in the great battles with the 
Persians. At the same time there is a something 
bitter and violent about him, which a time of heroic 
deeds and sacrifices, of mighty capabilities and in- 
spiriting results, could neither soften down nor yet 
dispense with. The spirit of his tragedies is that of 
an untamed, masculine mind, seldom moved by 
softer feelings, but spell-boimd by reverence for the 
gods, by the recognition of an unbending moral 
order, by resignation to a destiny from which there 
is no escape. Never were the Titan-like defiance of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC • 




unbridled strength, the wild fiirj' of passion and Chap. 
frenzy, the crushing might of fate, the paroxysms of 
divine vengeance, more thrillingly painted than by 
iEschyliip. At the bottom of all his sentiments lies 
reverence for the divine powers ; yet these are grouped 
almost monotheistically together, in his vast vision, 
as one almighty power* What Zeus says happens ; his 
will always comes to pass, even though it escape the 
notice of men ; ^ no mortal can do aught against his 
will ; ^ none can escape the decision of heaiVen, or 
rather of destiny,^ over which Zeus himself is power- 
less.* In face of this divine power man feels himself 
weak and frail ; his thoughts are fleeting as the 
shadow of smoke ; his life is like a picture which a 
sponge washes out.^ That man mistake not his 
position, that he learn not to overrate what is 
human,^ that he be not indignant with the Gods 
when in affliction,^ that his mind soar not too high, 
that the grain of guilt planted by pride grows to a 
harvest of tears,* — such is the teaching which, with 
glowing words, flashes on us in every page of the 

Not even -^schylus, however, was able to grasp 
these ideas in their purity, or to rise above the con- 
tradiction which runs not only through Greek tragedy, 
but through the whole of the Greek view of life. On 

* Suppl, 698; Agamemnon, 1327. 
1485. • Niobe, Fr. 155, (164). 

» Prometh. 550. ' Fragm. 369 Dindorf. Sto- 

* Pers. 93 ; Fragm. 299 Din- hcBUts. Serm, 108, 43, attributes 
dorf (^62 Nanck.). the words to Euripides. 

* Prometh. 511. « Pers. 820. 

* Fragm. 295(390); Agam. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, the one hand, even he gives utterance to the ancient 
' belief in the envy of heaven, which is so closely con- 
nected with the peculiarity of natural religion ; sick- 
ness lurks under the rudest health; the wave of 
fortune, when it bears man highest on its crest, 
breaks on a hidden reef; would the man on whom 
fortime smiles escape ruin, he must voluntarily throw 
away a part of what he has ; * even fate itself ordains 
guilt, when bent on utterly destroying a family.^ On 
the other hand, iEschylus never tires of insisting on 
the connection between guilt and punishment. Not 
only in the old stories of Niobe and Ixion, of the 
house of Laius and of that of Atreus, does he paint 
with telling touches the unavoidable nature of divine 
vengeance, the mischief which follows in the wake 
of pride, the never-dying curse of crime ; but also in 
the unexpected result of the Persian expedition he 
sees a higher hand, visiting with punishment the 
self-exaltation of the great king, and the insults 
offered to the gods of Grreece. Man must suffer ^ 
according to his deeds ; God blesses him who lives 
in piety without guile and pride, but vengeance/ 
though it may be slow at first, suddenly overtakes 
the transgressor of right; some Dik6 strikes down 
with a sudden blow,* others she slowly crushes ; from 
generation to generation the curse of crime gathers 
strength, likewise virtue and happiness ^ descend on 

> Agam. 1001 ; compare the • Agam. 1663 ; Choeph. 309 ; 

story of Polycrates in Herodo- Fr. 282. 
tufi, iii. 40. * Eumen. 630 ; Fr. 283. 

2 Niobe, Ft. 160 ; blamed by » Choeph. 61. 
Plato, Rep. 380, A. • Agam. 760. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


children and children's children ; the Furies rule over Chap. 
the destiny of men, avenging the fathers' sins on the ' 

sons,^ sucking the criminal's life-blood, stealthily 
clinging to his feet, throwing roimd him the snares 
of madness, pursuing him with punishment down to 
the shades.^ Thus severely and clearly through all 
the plays of iEschylus runs the thought of divine 
justice and of implacable destiny. 

All the more remarkable on that account is the 
vigour with which the poet breaks through the fetters 
which this view of the world imposes. In the Eu- 
menides, these moral conflicts, the play of which 
-Sschylus can so-well pourtray,^ are brought to a satis- 
factory issue, the bright Olympic Groddess appeasing 
the dark spirits of vengeance, and the severity of the 
ancient bloodthirsty Justice yielding to human kind- 
ness. In the Prometheus, natural religion as a whole 
celebrates its moral transfiguration ; the jealousy of 
the gods towards mortals is seen to resolve itself 
into mercy ; Zeus himself requires the aid of the 
Wise One, who, for his kindness to men, has had to 
feel the whole weight of his wrath ; yet, on the other 
hand, the imbending mind of the Titan must be 
softened, and Zeus' rule of might be changed by 
willing submission into a moral rule. What the 
poet places in the legendary past is in reality the 
history of his own time and of his own mind. 
iEscbylus stands on the boundary line between two 
periods of culture, and the story he tells of the miti- 

» Eum. 830. • Choeph. 896 ; Emn. 198, 

' Emu. 264, 312. 566. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


.Chap, gation of ancient justice, and of the new rule of the 
Grods, was repeated in another way, the sternness of 

the generation of Marathon giving place to the 
cheerful beauty of the age of Pericles. 
(h) SophO' To the spirit of this new age Sophocles has 
cU», given the most fitting expression. Agreeing as he 

does in principle with his predecessor, his poems, 
nevertheless, convey a very diflFerent impression. The 
keynote of the poetry of Sophocles is likewise reve- 
rence for the Grods, whose hand and laws encompass 
human life. From them come all things, even mis- 
fortune ; ^ their never-decaying power no mortal can 
withstand ; nothing can escape its destiny ; ^ from 
their eyes no deed and no thought can be hid ;* their 
eternal laws,* created by no mere human power, dare 
no one transgress. Men, however, are weak and 
frail, mere shadows or dreams, a very nothing, capable 
only of a passing semblance of happiness.* No 
mortal's life is free from misfortune,® and even the 
happiest man cannot be called happy before his 
death ; ^ nay, taking all things into accoimt, which 
the changing day brings with it, the number of woes, 
the rarity of good fortune, the end to which all must 
come, it were well to repeat the old saying, ' Not to 
have been bom is the best lot, and the next best is 
to die as soon as may be.'® The^ highest practical 
wisdom is, therefore, to control the wishes, to mo^te^ 

» Ajax, 1036 ; Trach. 1278. Fr. 12, 616, 860. 

s Antig. 604, 951 ; Fr. 616. • Ant. 611 ; Fr. 630. 

• Electra, 667. ' (Ed. R. Trach. 1, 943; Fr. 
« (Ed. Bex, 864 ; Ant. 460. 632, 683. 

* Ajax, 126; (Ed. R. 1186; « (Ed. Col. 1216. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



rate the desires, to love justice, to fear God, to be Chap. 
resigned to fate. That man should not exalt him- 
self above human measure, that only the modest 
man is acceptable to the Grods,^ that it is absurd 
to seek a higher instead of being content with a 
moderate lot, that arrogance hurries on to sudden 
destruction, that Zeus hates the vaunts of a boastful 
tongue,^ all this Sophocles shows by the example of 
men who have been hurled from the summit of 
fortune, or who have been ruined by recklessness and 
overbearing. He, too, is impressed by the thought 
of the worth of virtue and of divine retribution. He 
knows that uprightness is better than riches, that 
loss is better than unjust gain, that heavy guilt 
entails heavy punishment, but that piety and virtue 
are worth more than all things else, and are rewarded 
not only in this world, but in the next ; * he even 
declares that it is more important to please those in 
the next world than those in this.* He is more- 
over convinced that all wisdom comes from the Gods, 
and that they always conduct to what is right,* albeit 
men may never cease from learning and striving 
after it.® He bids them to commit their griefs to 
Zeus, who from heaven above looks down and orders 
all things, and to bear what the Gods send with 
resignation,^ and in this belief is neither puzzled 

> Ajax, 127, 768; (Ed. Col. » Fr. 834, 227, 809, 866; in 

1211 ; Ft. 320, 628. the imintelligible eei^ ruiipt^ 

* (Ed. R. 873 ; Ant. 127. probably there is a B^la fjLo7pa, 

* Fr. 18, 210, 196; Philoc. • Fr. 731, 736. 
1440. » Elec. 174 ; Fr. 623, 862. 

* Ant. 71. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap, by the good fortune of many bad men, nor yet by 
the misfortunes of many good ones.* 

The same thoughts had inspired the poetry of 
-^schylus, and yet the spirit of the drama of Sopho- 
cles is a very diflferent one from his. Sophocles can 
show a higher artistic execution, a fuller dramatic 
handling, a more delicate delineation of the inner 
life, a more careful unravelling of action from cha- 
racters and of characters by means of actions, a better 
proportioned beauty, a clearer and more pleasing 
language ; whereas for tempestuous force, for wild 
exultation, for majestic view of history, ^Eschylus is 
imrivalled. Nor is the moral platform of the two 
tragedians quite the same. Both are penetrated with 
reverence for the divine powers; but in iEschylus 
this reverence is combined with a horror which has 
first to be set aside, and with an antagonism which 
has to be overcome before it can come up to the 
trustful resignation and the blissful peace of the 
piety of Sophocles. The power of fate seems with 
-^schylus much harsher, because less called for by 
the character of those whom it reaches ; the reign of 
Zeus is a reign of terror, mitigated only by degrees, 
and man must perish if the Deity enter into too close 
relations with him.^ Both poets celebrate the victory 
of moral order over human self-will ; but in iEschylus 
the victory is preceded by severer and more dreadful 
struggles. Moral order works, with him, as a stern 

' Fr. 104. lo in the Prometheiis, espe- 

« Compare the character of cially v. 887, &c. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

» Ant. 623. 



and fearful power, crushing the refractory ; whereas, Chap. 
with Sophocles, it completes its work with the quiet 
certainty of a law of nature, awakening rather pity 
for human weakness than terror. That conflict of the 
old bloodthirsty justice with the new, round which 
the Eumenides of -^schylus play, Sophocles has left 
behind ; with him justice is, from the very begin- 
ning, harmoniously united with mercy, and the most 
accursed of all mortals finds in the ' (Edipus Golo- 
neus ' reconciliation at last. His heroes, too, are of 
a different order from those of his predecessor. In 
j^schylus moral opposites are so hard, that human 
representatives of them do not suflSce him ; hence he 
brings the Grods themselves into the battle-field — 
Zeus and the Titans, the daughters of Night and the 
denizens of Olympus ; whereas the tragedy of Sopho- 
cles moves entirely in the world of men. The former 
deals by preference with violent natures and uncon- 
trolled passions ; the strong point of the latter is to 
depict what is noble, self-contained, tender ; strength 
is by him generally coupled with dignity, pain with 
resignation. Hence his female characters are so 
specially successful. ^Eschylus paints in a Clytsem- 
nestra, the demoniacal side of woman's nature in all 
its repulsiveness. Sophocles in an Antigone pour- 
trays pure womanhood, knowing ' how to love, but 
not to hate,' ^ and putting even hatred to shame by the 
heroism of her love. In short, the poetry of Sopho- 
cles sets before us the sentiments of an epoch and a 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, people which having, by most successful eflforts, risen 
' to a happy use of its powers, and so to fame and 

position, enjoys existence, and which has learned to 
look on human nature and all that belongs to it in a 
cheerful spirit, to prize its greatness, to mitigate its 
sufferings by wise resignation, to bear its weaknesses, 
to control its excesses by custom and law. From him, as 
from no other poet, the idea is gathered of a beautiful 
natural agreement between duty and inclination, be- 
tween freedom and order, which constitutes the moral 
ideal of the Greek world. 

(<?) JSuH' Only some four Olympiads later comes Euripides. 

pt eg. Yg^ what a remarkable change in ethical tone and 
view of life is apparent in his writings I As an artist, 
Euripides is far too fond of substituting calculation 
for the spontaneous outcome of the poet's mind, criti- 
cal reflection for admiring contemplation. By means 
of particular scenes of an exciting and terrifying 
character, by chorus-songs often loosely connected 
with the action of the play, by rhetorical declama- 
tion and moralising, he seeks to produce an effect 
which might be gained in greater purity and depth 
from the unison of the whole. That harmony between 
the moral and the religious life which commended 
itself so agreeably to us in Sophocles, may be seen in 
a state of dissolution in the plays of the younger 
poet. Not that he is deficient in moral maxims and 
religious thoughts. He knows full well that piety 
and the virtue of temperance are the best things for 
man ; that he who is mortal must not be proud of 
advantages nor despair in misfortune ; that he can do 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


nothing without the Gods ; that in the long run the Chap. 
good man fares well and the bad fares ill ; that a ' 

modest lot is preferable to fitful greatness ; ^ that the 
poor man's fear of God is worth more than the osten- 
tatious sacrifices of many a rich man ; that virtue and 
intelligence are better than wealth and noble birth.'^ 
He discourses at length of the benefits confeiTed by 
the Gods on men ; * he speaks right well of their 
righteous and almighty rule,^ and he even traces 
back human gmlt to their will.* 

However numerous such expressions may be in 
his writings, still they do not contain the whole of 
his view of the world, neither is the ethical pecu- 
liarity of his poetry to be found in them. Euripides 
has sufficient appreciation of what is great and 
morally beautiful, to be able to paint it when it 
comes before him in a true and telling manner. For 
all that, as a pupil of philosophers,^ as a kindred spirit 

* Bacch. 1139. lo Schl. Hip- Zeller's Philosophic der Grie- 
polyt. 1100. Kirchh. Fr. 77, chen, vol. i. 790, 3. For the 
80, 257, 305, 355, 395, 507, 576, traces thereof, which are prin- 
621, 942, 1014, 1016, 1027 cipally found in some of the 
Nauck. fragments, compare Hab- 

* Fr. 329, 63, 264, 345, 514, rnjfo's Euripides Restitut. 
940. 109, 118, 139. Anaxagoras, 

* Suppl. 197. however, does not, like Euri- 
< Troad. 880 ; Hel. 1442. pides, make Earth and Ether, 

Compare the concluding verses but Air and Ether come first 

of this piece, which also occur after the original mixing of all 

at the end of the Andromache things. The well-known and 

and Bacchae. Fr. 797, 832, 875, beautiful passage (Fragment 

969. 902) commending the investi- 

* Hippol. 1427. gator, who contemplates with 

* The testimony of the an- innocence the eternal order of 
cients respecting the connec- immortal nature, is referred to 
tion between Euripides and Anaxagoras. Compare also Fr. 
Anaxagoras has been quoted in 7. Younger men, like Prodicus 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap, to the better Sophists, he is too far removed from the 
older lines of thought to be able to give himself 
freely and with full conviction to the traditional 
faith and morality. His sober imderstanding feels 
the improbability and imseemliness of many legends, 
and the artistic spirit has not such an exclusive hold 
on him that he can overlook this for the sake of the 
ideas they embody, or for their poetic worth. The 
fortunes of men do not seem to him to be directly 
the revelation of a higher power, but rather to be 
proximately the result of natural causes, of calcula- 
tion, of caprice, and of accident. Even moral prin- 
ciples appear wavering. If, on the whole, their 
authority is admitted, still the poet cannot conceal 
from himself that even an ifomoral course of conduct 
has much to say in its defence. The grand poetic 
way of contemplating the world, the moral and reli- 
gious way of looking at human life, has given place 
to a sceptical tone, to a decomposing reflection, to a 
setting forth of plain natural facts. iEschylus 
brought the Eumenides, all in the uncouth guise of 
antiquity, yet with most fearful effect, on to the 
stage ; whereas the Electra of Euripides says to her 
brother, or rather the poet himself says, that they 
are mere fancies of his imagination.^ Whilst Iphi- 
geneia is preparing to sacrifice the captives, she re- 
flects that the goddess herself cannot possibly require 
this sacrifice, and that the story of the feast of 

and Socrates, Euripides may have known, but cannot have 
been their pupil. * Orest. 248, 387. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Tantalus is a fable.* Likewise in the Electra * the Chap. 
tragic chorus doubts as to the wonder of the change ' 

in the course of the sun. In the Troades,' Hecuba 
questions the story of the judgment of Paris, and ex- 
plains the assistance of Aphrodite in carrying off 
Helen to mean the attractive beauty of Paris. In 
the Bacchge,^ Teiresias gives an insipid, half-natural 
explanation of the birth of Bacchus.* The Gods, 
says Eiu-ipides,^ have no needs, and therefore the 
stories which impute to them human passions cannot 
possibly be true. Even the general notions of divine 
vengeance give him offence. This he will not regard 
as a punishment for particular acts, but rather as a 
universal law.^ In other instances, the actions and 
commands of the Gods are held up to blame — blame, 
too, for the most part, not called for by the character 
of the acting persons — and go unpunished in the 
sequel, so that it necessarily appears as the poet's 
own conviction ; ® whence he concludes at one time 
that man need not disturb himself because of his 
faults, since the Gods commit the same ; at another 
time, that the stories about the Gods cannot be 

The prophetic art is held in equally low estima- 
tion by Euripides. The opportunity is seized in the 

* Iphig. Taur.-372. that Grod cares only for great 

* 734. events, leaving unimportant 
« 963. things to chance. 

< 266. * lo 448, 1316 ; Elect. 1298 ; 

* Frag. 209. Orest. 277, 409 ; Here. Fur. 

* Here. Fur. 1328. 339, 664. 

^ Fr. 608, with which the » Here. Fur. 1301. 
saying (Fr. 964) is connected, 

Digitiz.ed by VjOOQIC 


Chap. Helen,^ to prove, on highly rationalistic grounds, 
^' that it i8 all a lie and deceit.* With these legends 
and rites, however, belief in the Gods is most 
thoroughly interwoven. No wonder, therefore, that 
the poet often puts into the mouths of his heroes 
statements respecting the existence of the Grods, 
which would sound more natural coming from Pro- 
tagoras than from men and women of the legendary 
past. Talthybius raises the question whether there 
are Gods, or whether Chance guides all things ; ' 
another doubts their existence,"* because of the unjust 
distribution of good and bad fortune ; Hecuba in 
her prayer wonders what the deity really is, whether 
Zeus, or natural necessity, or the spirit of mortal 
beings ; * Hercules and Clytaemnestra leave it open 
whether there are Gods, and who Zeus is ; ^ even the 
Ether is explained to be Zeus.^ So much at least 
these utterances prove that Euripides had wandered 
far away from the ancient faith in the Gods. Allow- 
ing that he is sincere when he says that only a fool 
can deny the deity and give credence to the deceitful 
assertions of philosophy respecting what is hidden,® 
stiU his attitude appears to have been prepondera- 
tingly sceptical and critical towards the popular 
faith. Probably he allowed that there was a God ; 

» 743. * Troad. 877. 

* Sophoeletj Antig. 1033, • Here. Fur. 1250 ; Iph. Aul. 
makes Oleon attack the pro- 1034; Orestes, 410, and the 
phet, but his accusations are fragment of Melanippe Pr. 
refuted by the sequel. Not so 483. 

with Euripides. » Fr. 936, 869. 

* Hel. 484. " Fr. 906, 981. 

* Fr. 288 ; compare Fr. 892. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



certainly he attached no value to the legendary Chap. 
notions respecting the Gods; holding that the 
essence of Grod could not be known, and assuming 
the oneness of the divine nature either by glossing 
over or by plainly denying the ruling Pantheism.* 

Nor did the popular ideas respecting the state 
after death fare better at his hands. Naturally 
enough, he makes use of them when a poet can use 
them, but then it is also said, that we know not how 
it is with another life, we only follow an unfounded 
opinion. In several places Euripides expresses the 
opinion,^ pointing partly to Orphic-Pythagorean tra- 
ditions, and partly to the teaching of Anaxagoras 
and Archilaus,' that the spirit returns at death to 
the ether whence it came ; * apparently leaving it an 
open question, whether at all, or to what extent, 
consciousness belongs to the soul when united with 
the ether.* That the sphere of morals did not 

> Ft. 904 says the ruler of sciousness (yv^firi itBdvaros) 

aU things is now called Zeus, after it has united with the 

now Hades, which would point immortal Ether. From this 

to the opinion that the popular he deduces the belief in retri- 

Gods are only different names bution after death, and he asks 

for the one God. Helios and (Fr. 639, compare Fr. 452, 830), 

Apollo are identified (Fr. 781, whether on the whole life is 

11) according to the tradition not a death and death a life. 

of Orpheus. On the other hand, in the 

« Hippolyt. 192. Troades, 638, it is stated that 

" Compare Zeller's Philoso- the dead man is feelingless, 

phie der Griechen, Part I. pp. like an unborn child ; in Fr, 

388, 430, 822, 846. 636 that he is a nothing, earth 

^ Suppl. 632, the genuineness and a shade ; Fr. 734 appears 

of which Kirchhoff wrongly sus- only to recognise the immor- 

pefcts ; Hel. 1012 ; Fr. 836. tality of fame ; and in the 

* He says in the Helen : Th# Heraclid. 691, he leaves it an 

soul of the dead no longer lives, open question whether the dead 

but yet it has an eternal con- have feelings or not. 

c 2 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, remain unaflfected by these doubts may be gathered 


from the general character of his tragedies more 
definitely than from those particular utterances which 
in some measure sufficed to give ofiFence even to his 
cotemporaries.' The tragic movement in Euripides, 
unlike that conflict of moral forces which ^schylus 
and Sophocles knew how to depict with such deep 
feeling, lies rather in personal passions^ arrange- 
ments, and experiences. His heroes have not that 
ideal character which makes them types of a whole 
class. Hence, in most cases, that higher necessity, 
which called for our admiration in the case of 
.^Eschylus and Sophocles, is not active in the de- 
velopment of the Euripidean drama, but the final 
result is brought about by some external means, 
either by divine interposition or by some human 
cunning. Thus, rich as he may be in poetic 
beauties, successful in painting individual characters, 
experienced in knowledge of human life and himian 
weaknesses, thrilling in many of the speeches and 
scenes in his tragedies ; yet most undeniably he has 
come down from the moral and artistic height of his 
two great predecessors, by introducing into tragedy 
habits of inward reflection, of studied effect, and of 
artificial language, which Agatho with his dainty 

* As for instance : ri yKMra* but that all means of vengeance 

ifjiAfu>K€t See. Hippol. 607, or are lawful in case of injury, 

the language of Eteocles in It is true Euripides does not 

Phoen. 604, 626, that men will give these as his own senti- 

do anything for power, and ments. Yet even his cotem- 

even commit crimes for a poraries noticed their resem- 

throne ; or that of the old man blance to the moral teaching 

in lo 1061, that it befits the of the Sophists, 
fortunate man to shun wrong, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC ' 


elegance, and Critias with his sophistic moralising. Chap. 

were not slow to follow.^ * 

Cotemporary with ^Eschylus, or even a little (2)Didac' 
before him, the poets Epicbarmus, Simonides, and ^^ P^^- 
Pindar,- flourished : soon after him Bacchylides. 
The first of these, Epicharmus, it has been shown 
in an earlier work,^ takes a rational view of the 
world, and entertains clear notions on morals, and 
theology, thanks to his knowledge of philosophy. 
Simonides,* so far as his views can be gathered from (a) Sinw- 
scattered fragments, appears mainly to insist on that ^* ^*' 
moderation and self-restraint which result from a 
consideration of human weakness and frailty. Our 
life is full of toils * and cares ; its fortune is uncer- 
tain ; swiftly it hurries away; even prudence* is too 
easily lost by men ; their hardly-won virtue is imper- 
fect and unstable; it changes with circumstances; 
the best man is he on whom the Grods bestow pros- 
perity. A faultless man must not be looked for 5 
enough to find one moderately righteous.^ The same 
vein of feeling is found in Bacchylides, on whom (j) Bac- 
descended the mantle of Simonides. He knows that ^%^*^*- 
no one is altogether happy, that few are spared some 
heavy changes of fortune, and bursts, yet not alone, 
into the complaint : ' Not to have been bom were 
the happiest lot.'^ Hence the highest practical 

* ZeUer't Geschichte der weU as by -fischylus, a poet of 

Philosophic, Part I. p. 926, and the good old time. ArigtopKt 

Nanck. Trag. Frag. 699. Clouds, 1362. 

2 ZeUer'9 Philosophie der * Fr. 32, 36, 38, 39, 86 

Greichen, Part I. p. 427 (Ger- * Fr. 42. 

man). • Fr. 6. 

« Called by later writers, as » Fr. 1, 2, 3, 21, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, wisdom consists, in his mind, in equanimity, in a 
• contentment with the present, and absence of care 
for the future,^ At the same time he shares the 
conviction that man can discover what is right, and 
that Zeus, the all-seeing ruler of the world, is not 
to blame for the misfortunes of mortals.^ These 
are the same sentiments as in the older moral poet^s, 
without any noticeable change in the moral plat- 
((?) Pin- A spirit far more peculiar and more powerful, 

and more nearly akin to -^schylus, finds utterance 
in the poems of Pindar. At the bottom of Pindar's 
view of the world, as of that of iEschylus, lies a 
most exalted notion of the deity. ' God is the all ;'* 
nothing is for Him impossible. Zeus governs all 
things according to his will ; He bestows success or 
failure ; ^ law, which governs mortals and immortals, 
accomplishes its purposes with mighty hand.^ Nor 
are the deeds of men hid from the all-seeing eyes of 
God.^ Only beautiful and noble traits can be attri- 
buted to the deity ; he who accuses it of hiunan 
vices cannot escape pimishment.® Such being the 

» Fr. 19. (Trach. 1278) ohl^v rovrwy Z n 

* Fr. 29. M Zets, to express, All depends 

» Zeller, Part I. p. 90. upon God. 

< Clemem, Stromat. v. 610 : * Fr. 119 ; Pyth. ii. 49, 88 ; 

UifBapos . . . iivrucphs €tirc6v, Nem. x. 29. 

rl e€6s ; tri rh irav. Although • Fr. 146. 

Clement appears to give the ' 01. i. 64 ; Pyth. iii. 28 ; 

words beginning r/ as a quota- ix. 42. 

tion, it seems hardly likely * 01. i. 28, where, with a 

that they can have stood in curious combination of credu- 

Pindar. Perhaps Pindar used lity and rationalism, the story 

the words Bths rh iray in the of the feast of the Gods in the 

same sense that Sophocles said house of Tantalus is declared 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


exalted position of God, man occupies thereto a two- Chap. 

fold attitude. On the one hand he has a nature 

related to that of the Grods ; one is the race of men,* 
the race of Grods is another, yet both descend from 
the same mother; hence in nature and spirit mortals 
are not altogether unlike immortals. On the other 
hand, looking at their power, there is an infinite 
diflference,* for changeful is our lot, and joy and 
sorrow lie for us ever near together.^ True wisdom, 
therefore, consists in not transgressing the bounds of 
what is human, in looking to the Gods for all that is 
good, in taking with contentment what they bestow. 
'Seek not to be a God,' exclaims the poet: mor- , 
tality becomes mortals ; he who soars to heaven will, 
like Bellerophon, have a precipitate fall.* Only 
where God leads is blessing and success ; ^ in His 
hand rests the issue of our labour, according as it is 
determined by destiny.® From the deity comes all 
virtue and knowledge ; ^ and doubtless for this very 
reason, as being a gift of God, natural talent is 
placed by Pindar far above all acquirements, and 
the creative spirits on whom . it has been bestowed, 
above all other spirits, as the eagle of Zeus is above 

to be a fable, the occasion for ctXSnfoSf comes from God alone, 

which was supplied by the and proves its higher nature 

carrying off of Pelops by Posei- during the sleep of the body in 

don. prophetic dreams. 

> This, rather than the iden- » 01. ii. 30 ; Fr. 210. 

tity of both sexes, must be the * 01. v. 24 ; Isthm. v. 14 ; 

meaning of the words iyBp&y vii. 42. 

U Bhov yivos : men form a race • Fr. 85, where probably iv 

by themselves, the Gods form stands for h. 

another different therefrom. • Pyth. xii. 28. 

« Nem. vi. 1. According to ^ 01. ix. 28, 103 ; Pyth. i. 41 ; 

Frag. 108, the soul, the ^wKov Fr. 118. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap, the croaking ravens.* We must resign ourselves to 
• what God disposes, content ourselves with our lot, 
whatever it be. Strive not against Grod ; bear His 
yoke without kicking against the pricks ; adapt 
yourself to circumstances ; seek not what is impos- 
sible ; in all things observe moderation ; beware of 
envy, which deals the strongest blow to those most 
highly placed ; — these are the counsels of the poet.* 
Nay more, to give greater weight to his moral 
counsels, he not unfrequently appeals to a future 
retribution, of the wicked as well as of the good, 
sometimes following herein the received notions 
respecting Tartarus, Elysium, and the islands^ of 
the blest, at other times connecting therewith a 
belief in the migration of souls."* In the main, 
Pindar's platform, both religious and moral, is not 
diflFerent from that of -^schylus, albeit the thought 
of divine vengeance does not stand out with him in 
such tragic guise. 
(3) JBRgto- Would we see this view of life in transition to 
rtmu, ^^ 2ater form, no better example can be selected 
(a) Hero- than Herodotus. This friend of Sophocles, in writing 
history, often allows himself to be guided by the 

* 01. ii. 86 ; ix. 100 ; Nem. i. bably interpolated by some 

26 ; iii. 40. Alexandrian Jew. 

2 Pyth. ii. .34, 88 ; iii. 21, 59, * Fr. 110, 01. ii. 68. Accor- 

103; xi. 50; Fr. 201. ding to the latter passage, in 

» OL ii. 56 ; Fr. 106, 120. which Pindar is most explicit, 

Fr. 108 seems only to presup- reward or punishment follows 

pose the current notions, with in Hades. Some few dis- 

this difference, that a more tinguished men are allowed to 

intense life is attributed to return to life, and may, by a 

Bonis in Hades than was the threefold life of innocence, 

view of Homer and the mass enjoy the higher bliss on the 

of the people. Fr. 109 is pro- islands of the blessed. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


notions of olden times. He admits the rule of chap. 
divine providence in the order of nature,^ and equally ^' 
clearly in the fortunes of men, and especially in 
punishment, which overtakes the guilty, even though 
he have acted in the excess of an excusable passion.^ 
Popular forms of worship are honoured by him,* 
knowing as he does that every nation likes its own 
rites best ; only a madman, he says, can treat these 
with disdain.^ Credulous, too, he is, so far as 
to relate, in all good faith, divers wonders and pro- 
phecies,* among them some of the most extraordinary 
kind. Even his piety is of an antique type, aflfected 
with that fear of the divine powers which is so 
peculiarly suited to natural religion, where the ex- 
altation of Grods above men is not conceived of as an 
essential difiFerence, but is more physical than moral. 
Man is not destined to enjoy perfect good fortime ; 
his life is exposed to changes innumerable ; before 
death no one may be called happy ; nay it is even 
a general matter for doubt whether death is not 
better for a man than life.* He who in prosperity 
or imagination soars above the lot of men, is in- 
variably struck by the envy of the Deity, which, 
jealous of its privileges, will not brook a mortal 
rival.^ All this is quite in agreement with the 

» Her. iii. 108. * vii. 12, 67 ; viii. 37, 66 ; ix. 

« ii. 120; iv. 205; vi. 84; 100. Here belong the pro- 

viii. 129 ; vii. 133. phecies of Bakis and Musseus, 

• For this reason he hesitates viii. 77 ; ix. 43, respecting the 
to ntter the names of Egyptian genuineness of which he enter- 
Gods in a context which might tains no doubt. 

desecrate them, ii. 86, or to • ii. 31. 

speak of Egyptian mysteries. ' On the Buov 4>eov€p6v, conf . 

* iii. 3ft. i. 32. 34 ; iii. 40 ; vii. 10, 6, 46. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, spirit, which breathes through the older poetry of 

__J Grreece. 

For all that, Herodotus neither can nor will 
conceal from us the fact that he is the son of an 
epoch, in which thought has already begun to shake 
the foundations of a simple faith. Notwithstanding 
the naivete with which he tells many a wonder ;* there 
are times when he cannot resist the impulse to ex- 
plain away the marvels of legend, either referring 
them to natural causes in the rationalising spirit of 
the Sophists, or at least mentioning such explana- 
tions given by others with approval. Thus the 
wanderings of lo and the rape of Europa are ex- 
plained at the very beginning of his work to mean 
the carrying off by pirates of these two royal 
daughters. In the story of Gryges the wonderful 
power of his ring is referred to a very common 
trick.* The prophetic doves of Dodona turn into 
Egyptian priestesses.^ The Egyptian stories re- 
specting Paris and Helena are preferred to those of 
Homer, and the general tradition of the Greeks/ on 
grounds far removed from ancient poetry. When 
Poseidon interposes in the Thessalian legend, he sees 
the working of an earthquake,* and remarks not 
without irony, that those who believe Poseidon 
wrought the earthquake, may believe he interposed 
also. Add to this that he occasionally expresses the 
opinion that all men know equally little about the 

> i, 60, * ii. 120. 

M. 8. * vii. 129. 

» ii. 66. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Q-ods,^ and it will be patent, how much doubt had Chap. 
akeady taken the place of the ancient faith. 

In Thucydides, the next great historian, doubt (h) Thu- 
has gone over into the matter of fact treatment of ^ * ^** 
history. The high moral tone of his style no one 
will deny. Even in its unfinished form his history of 
the Peloponnesian war has aU the eflfect of a touching 
tragedy. This effect, however, is secured simply 
by a plain setting forth of historical facts, without 
introducing the interposition of the Grods to explain 
events. Thucydides knows how indispensable religion 
is for the public good. He shows, by hia very de- 
scription, how deeply he deplores the decay, not only 
moral but religious of his country.^ Yet the rule of 
the deity and of moral order in the world is only 
apparent in his pages by the progress of events. 
Convinced that human nature is always the same, 
he exhibits moral laws by showing how in the case 
before him ruin naturally resulted from the weakness 
and the passions of men, which he knows so well 
and can judge so impartially.* Nowhere is a belief 
betrayed in those extraordinary occurrences, in which 
the hand of God maxiifests itself in Herodotus. 
Where his cotemporaries see the fulfilment of a 
prophecy, he contents himself with sober criticism.* 
To depend on oracles instead of using remedies, he 
calls the folly of the masses ; * he openly expresses 

» ii. 3 (Schl.). vi. 15, 24, 30 ; vii. 75, 87. 

* See the well-known pas- * For instance, ii. 17, 64. 
sages ii. 53 ; iii. 82. ■ v. 103, where the Athenian 

■ iii, 82, 84 ; and in the de- is, without doubt, expressing 

scription of the Sicilian expe- the writer's opinion. • 
dition, its and results. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, his disapproval of the disastrous superstition of 

\ Nicias.* In the panegyric of the dead,* which is 

quite as much a memorial of his own spirit as of the 
spirit of Pericles, there is not a word of the legendary 
history of Athens, that hackneyed theme of earlier 
panegyrists ; but instead thereof, there is a states- 
man's mind dealing with facts, and practical problems. 
His history is a brilliant evidence of a mature judg- 
ment, of high intellectual culture, of a many-sided 
experience of life, of a calm, unimpassioned, pene- 
trating, and moraUy sober view of the world. It is a 
work which kindles the highest respect not only for the 
writer, but for the whole period, which could rear up 
such a genius. 

Nor yet does this work conceal the darker sides of 
that period. • Eead only the descriptions it gives ' of 
the confusion of aU moral notions in the factious 
struggles of the Peloponnesian war, of the desolation 
of Athens by the plague, of the decline of piety and 
self-sacrifice, of the running riot of all the selfish 
passions, to be satisfied of the decay of moral excel- 
lence, even in that period of might and culture. Be- 
yond all question, along with this outward change of 
conduct, universal convictions were shaken also ; in 
proof of which, Thucydides puts in the mouth of 
several of his speakers, and particularly of those 
coming from Athens, naked avowals of the most 
selfish principles, such as could only come from the 
lips of some one of the younger Sophists. All who 
have the power seek to rule ; no one is restrained by 

» vii. 50. 2 ii. 36. « ii. 53 ; iii. 82. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


considerations of right from pursuing his advantage Chap. 

by hook and by crook ; the rule of the stronger is *_. 

the universal law of nature ; at bottom every one 
judges what is right and honourable by his own 
interests and enjoyments ; even the best regulated 
states act on this idea, at least in their foreign rela- 
tions. These and such like utterances are put into 
the mouths of Athenian popular men and ambassa- 
dors on every opportunity.^ Even those who have to 
suffer from Athenian self-seeking are in the end 
hardly able to blame it.* Have we not here moral 
and political conditions keeping exact pace with the 
sophistic character of philosophy ? 

Nor were other prudent men blind to the dangers W The 
which this course of things was bringing upon them, ediaHs, 
however little they were able to cortrol it, or to run 
counter to the spirit of their times. Take, for 
example, Aristophanes. This poet, an enthusiastic AH$to- 
admirer of the good old time, as he paints it with its ^ ^'' 
steady morality, its strict education, its military 
prowess, its orderly and prudent administration,^ 
warms to his subject whenever he speaks of the days 
qi Marathon.* With implacable satire, now in the 
form of bantering jest, now in that of bitter earnest- 
ness, he lashes the innovations which have taken the 
place of time-honoured institutions; democracy 
running riot with its demagogues and sycophants ; * 

> i. 76 ; iii. 40 ; v. 89, 106, nians, 676. 

Ill ; vi. 86. * Wasps; Clouds, 668. The 

* iv. 61. Sycophants are taken to task 

» Clonds, 882 ; Knights, 1316. on every opportunity. 

* Wasps, 1071 ; the Achar- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, poetry, empty, effeminate, free-thinking, faithless to 

' its moral idea, fallen from its artistic height;* 

sophistic culture with its fruitless speculations, 
dangerous alike to faith and morals, the produce of 
shameless quibblers, atheistic rationalisers,^ or con- 
scienceless perverters of justice, instead of steady 
citizens and sober-minded men. Love for what is 
ancient is with him undeniably an affair of personal 
conviction. Of this his zeal is proof^ the excitement 
and classic beauty of those passages which set forth 
the praise of the olden time and its customs. Greater 
proof still lies in the general tone of his comedies. 
Boastful himself, with reason, of the courage with 
which .he discharged his duty as a citizen against 
Cleon,^ he extracts even from us the testimony of his 
being an honourable man fighting for a principle. 

Whilst warmly taking the field against the spirit 
of innovation, he at the same time not only presup- 
poses this spirit in his audience, but actually 
furthers and promotes it. Demagogues and syco- 
phants he lashes ; yet whilst lashing them he tells 
us that every place is full of them ; that democracy 
has a hundred heads, ever full of vitality ; that the 
Athenian people, like a childish old man, are always 
• the victim of the most impudent of their flatterers ; 
that the steady men of the older generation are just 
as eager for their judicial dues as the whole body of 
worshipful citizens are for their law-suits ; that the 

» Frogs ; Achar. 393. » Wasps, 1029, 1284 ; Peace, 

2 Clouds ; Birds, 1282, 1663 ; 961 ; Achar, 969 ; Clouds, 642. 
• Frogs, 1491. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


young champions of Spartan severity are as de- Chap. 
bauehed as the demagogues ; ^ that the sovereign ' 

people, after the re-establishment of Solon's constitu- 
tion, has gone on as capriciously as before, only 
wanting female government to complete the folly.^ 
Even in his plays he indulges in the arts of the 
demagogue and the sycophant ; Socrates he slanders, 
and many another as heartily as any rhetorician could 
do ; and to outbid those who squandered the public 
property in order to bribe the people, he tells the 
citizens of Athens that if things were fairly done,^ 
they ought to receive far more than they did. For 
a reform in religion and morals, the prospects with 
him are bad. He praises the moral training of the 
ancients, but observes with a smile that morality is 
little at home amongst his hearers,* and finds the 
vices from which his people suflFered at bottom very 
natural.* Women he brings on the stage to lash 
their licentiousness ; but that licentiousness he re- 
presents as so deep and so general, that there can 
hardly be hope of improvement. He makes an on- 
slaught on the philosophers who deny the Gods, but 
in one of his first comedies he gives us to understand, 
that belief in his time rested on trembling feet.® 
Not only here and there,^ but in whole acts and 
plays,® he exposes the Gods, together with their 

Birds, 38. • Knights, 32. 

« Eccles. V. 466 ; conf . Plato, ^ Clouds, 369, 396, 900, 1076 ; 

Rep. viii. 663, B. Birds, 654, 1608 ; Eccles. 778 ; 

» Wasps, 665. Plut. 123, 697. 

* Clouds, 1065.- * In the Frogs, Peace, and 

* Compare Birds, 137 ; Frogs, the Birds. 
148 ; Knights, 1384. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




C. The 
solved by 
the new 
form% of 

priests, with audacious recklessness, bringing them 
down with rough wit to a human level and to what 
is low and common ; holding up the moral weaknesses 
in which they resemble men nakedly and minutely ; 
making the world of Gods, like that of men, turn in 
such a wild whirl, that neither the spectator who 
takes delight in this perverted world, nor yet the 
poet, can have any real respect for beings who 
are so readily and recklessly at the service of his 
imagination. Much of this may be attributed to the 
license of comedy ; ^ yet more than enough remains 
to show that the poet himself, as well as his 
audience, had strayed far from the ancient morality 
which he so regretfully wishes to recall ; that his 
fanatical devotion, like fiousseau's wild dream of 
returning to a state of nature, is only the outcome 
of discontent with the present, only the expres- 
sion of a romantic idea, not a sentiment pene- 
trating his every day life, and ruling his thought 
and feelings. Thus everywhere where we touch 
upon them, the age and the surroundings from which 
Attic philosophy came forth appear penetrated 
by a spirit of innovation, rendering it impossible for 
the most decided lovers of antiquity to adhere to the 
life and beliefs of their ancestors. 

Amongst other signs of this change, one pheno- 
menon deserves to be noticed, which appears about 
the time of the Peloponnesian war — the increasing 
spread of the worship of the mysteries, and of sooth- 
saying in connection therewith. Hitherto, the 

» Plut, 666. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



reputed predictions of the older prophets had been 
appealed to indeed,^ as is the wont of men, but only in 
exceptional cases ; now the mischief and abuse which 
was perpetrated by such appeals reached an incredible 
pitch.^ To judge by the numerous allusions in the 
writers of this and the following generation, the 
Orphic and Corybantic mysteries probably gained at 
this time both ground and supporters.^ Such an 
extension, however, was an innovation in more than 
one respect. Looking at it from an outside point of 
view, it was one thing to seek counsel from public 
oracles and make use of ancient rites naturalised 
from time immemorial in fixed spots \ a very diflfer- 


* Herod, viii. 7 ; ix. 437, 
mentions prophecies of Bakis 
and MussBUS respecting the 
Persian war. 

* This is particularly evident 
in Aristophanes, who loses no 
oi^rtnnity of lashing the pro- 
phets. Not to mention cursory 
attacks, as in Clouds, 330 ; 
Birds, 521; in Knights, 109, 
818, S50, 967 (comp. Lysist. 
767), he shows what liberal use 
Cleon and other demagogues 
made of superstition to flatter 
the self-love of the people, and 
to direct its will by the so- 
caUed prophecies of Bakis. In 
Peace, 1047, he introduces a 
prophet Hierocles, who, from 
interested motives, opposes the 
conclusion of peace, and is 
evidently meant for a real 
person; in the Birds, 959, a 
prophet, who thrusts himself in 
at the founding of a city, to 
catch a trifle. Such like pheno- 
mena may have given occasion 

to the polemic of Euripides. 

■ Amongst others, Philolaus 
{Zellery Part I. 388) and Plato 
(Phsedo, 69, C. ; Rep. ii. 363, C. 
364, B. ; Laws, vi. 782, C), and 
more particularly Euripides and 
Aristophanes. . The former 
(Hippol. 949) describes Hippo- 
lytus as a pupil of Orpheus, 
and (Fr. 476) introduces a 
mystic, who, initiated into the 
orgies of Idjsean Zeus, of Zag- 
reus, and the Curetes, devotes 
himself to an Orphic life. The * 
latter not only depicts (in the 
Frogs, 145, 312) the life of the 
initiated and uninitiated in 
Hades as rudely and vividly as 
the consecrated priests do in 
Plato, but also (in Peace, 374) 
hints at the opinion that man 
cannot die quietly without re- 
ceiving initiation before death, 
and (in Wasps, 119) alludes to 
the custom of initiating the 
sick for the purpose of healing 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap, ent thing to have recourse to the so-called answers 
of individual prophets and to a private worship 
without fixed locality, propagated by vagrant priests, 
practised in self-constituted confraternities, and 
claiming to elevate all who took part in it as the 
special elect above the mass of mankind, both in this 
world and in the next. What was this increasing 
fondness for private worship and irregular prophecy 
but a proof that the public religion was not altoge- 
ther satisfactory, whilst it contributed at the same 
time to intensify the evil ? Looking at its real 
nature, this mystical piety has diverged from the 
received form of faith and life. In it, the notions 
of the gods, flowing into each other, begin to lose 
their distinctness ; ^ perhaps even the tendency to 
resolve all into pantheism, which may be already seen 
in individuals in the fifth century, may be referred 
thereto.' The conception of human life and of 
human nature has assumed an altered character, 
owing to a clearer belief in immortality, introduced 
by the dogmas of the migration of souls and of 

* This is more immediately be found the God in whose 

true in the case of Dionysus, service they were enlisted. At 

In mystic theology this God, a later time, following Herac- 

as the representative of the litus' example, Dionysus was 

changing life of nature, dying identified with Plato. See 

in winter, reviving in spring, Zeller's Gesch. d. Phil. Vol. I. 

was honoured under the name 51, 3 ; 592, 5. 
of Dionysus Zagreus, and * Besides the extracts from 

treated as one of the Gods of Euripides already quoted, p. 19, 

the nether world. On this 1, compare the ihragment in 

account the Dionysus-mysteries Clemens, Stromat. v. 603, D, 

are so important for the future which Nimok, Fragm. Trag. 

life. To the initiated in them 688, attributes in all proba- 

(PlatOy Phaedo, 69, C. comp. bility to ^schylus* son Eupho- 

ArUtoph., Frogs) may be pro- rion : Ztvs icrriv al^p, Zths tk 

mised life in Hades with the 7^, Zc^; r* ohpwhs Z€6s roi rk 

Gods, among whom must surely 'rdvra x^"^* ra'jfS* Mortooy, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



future retribution ; * and even of this change traces 
may be seen in the poetry of the time of Euripides.' 
Lastly, in connection herewith an ascetic code of 
morals ^ has come into vogue, enjoining abstinence 
from animal food,^ celibacy,* the avoidance of certain 
defilements,® and the wearing of white clothing. 
Philosophy, it is true, could only appropriate in an 
intellectual form the general idea of this asceticism, 
the renunciation of what belongs to the senses. Not 
till a later time did it embrace it as a whole with 
all its external belongings, in the system of the 
Neopythagoreans. Before that time came, thanks to 
the state of intellectual life and mental development 
in Greece, it had entered itself on another and a more 
brilliant career. 


» Comp. Zeller, Vol. I. 54, 
388, 581, 664. 

« Besides Euripides (p. 19, 1), 
Melanippides (Fr. 6 in Bergk, 
Lyr. Gr. p. 982) appears to have 
regarded the soul as immortal, 
lo, too (Fr. 4 in Bergk, p. 464), 
appropriates the Pythagorean 
belief in immortality. A reso- 
lution of souls into aether may 
also be implied in the popular 
belief mentioned by Aristo- 
phanes (Peace, 832), that the 
dead become stars. 

» See Eu/rlpid., Hippol. 949 ; 
Fr. 475 ; Plato, Laws, vi. 782, 
C, comparing therewith the 
principles of Empedocles and 

* Probably Euri^., Fr. 884, 
refers to this. 

* That this was a part of 
Orphic perfection may be ga- 
thered from Euripides, who 

holds up Hippolytus as a type 
of an Orphic, probably only 
because this despiser of Aphro- 
dite (Hippol. 10, 101), by his 
typical chastity, reminds of 
Orphic virginity. A vow of 
chastity al»o occurs in Electra, 
V. 264, and it is well known 
that marriage was forbidden to 
many priestesses, though more 
rarely to priests. 

• ^etJyw y4v€<rly re fiporwv Koi 
v€Kpo$iiKrii ob xp^fivrdiiepos (^Eu- 
rip.y Fr. 476, 16), consequently 
the same KaBapti^ir aarh icfiHovs 
Koi \€xous (touching a corpse 
or woman who has been con- 
fined), which the Pythagorean 
of Alexander Polyhister in 
Biog., viii. 33 requires. Birth 
and death, for reasons closely 
allied, are regarded as pollu- 
ting. Compare Ernnp., Iphig. 
Taur. 372 ; Th^io. iii. 104. 

B 2 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Chap. The age of Socrates inherited from that which had 

^^; gone before it a rich treasure of religious ideas, of 

moral principles, and scientific conceptions ; at the 
same time it had declined at every point from the 
earlier tone of thought and custom. Traditional 
lines seemed now to be all too narrow ; new paths 
had been discovered; new problems pressed for 
solution. The legendary ideas respecting the Grods 
and the state after death, had lost all meaning for 
the great majority of the educated ; * the very exist- 
ence of the Gods had been denied by many; ancient 
customs had fallen into disuse; the orderliness of 
civil life, the simplicity and purity of domestic life, 
had given place to a wanton dissoluteness of conduct, 
and an unscrupulous pursuit of pleasure and profit. 
Principles subversive of all law and of all right were 
being unblushingly advocated with the cheerful 
approval of the younger generation. The severity 
and grandeur of the earlier art, the lucid beauty, the 
classic grace, the self-contained dignity of the later 
art, began to resolve themselves into the study of 

» Conf . Plato, Rep. i. 330, D. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


mere eflTect ; whilst under the influence of sophistry, Chap 

philosophy had come to disbelieve, not only in indi- ! 

vidual systems, but also in the whole course of 
previous enquiry, and even in the possibility of know- 
ledge at all. 

Far, however, from being exhausted hereby, the 
spirit of Greece was only completely delivered by 
the throes and struggles of the fifth century. Its 
mental horizon was widened ; its thought was sharps 
ened ; its views and conceptions enriched. Its whole 
consciousness had gained a new field since its suc- 
cess in renowned exploits and glorious undertakings. 
If the meridian of classic art and of free political 
life was past towards the close of this period, still 
the newly-awakened culture of the understanding 
was full of intellectual promise for the future ; for 
sophistry had been destructive, not constructive, only 
suggesting, not accomplishing. Some new and 
thorough change was called for to satisfy not only 
practical but also intellectual requirements. Ancient 
propriety of conduct, and the received philosophic 
teaching having been once ousted by the altered 
spirit of the times, simple return thereto became im- 
possible. But to despair on this account of all 
knowledge, and of all principles of morality, was most 
precipitate. Allowing even that the received view 
of both was inadequate, it by no means followed, 
that all science, and aH morality was impossible. 
On the contrary, the more the pernicious conse- 
quences of such a view were exposed, the more urgent 
became the duty of avoiding them by a thorough 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, transformation of the whole tone of feeling and 
_[ thought, without, however, attempting the impos- 
sible task of simply restoring the past. 
A. Digtinc' For this purpose some new path must be struck out. 
^cmtie What that path should be, a far-sighted eye could 
from pre- discern with sufficient clearness by the aid of the 
philoto' experience of the past. Traditional propriety of con- 
I'^y- duct had given way before the spirit of innovation, 
pre'Socra- iiiasmuch as it rested upon instinct and custom, 
tic tradi' and not on any clear recognition of necessity. He 
Socratic who would undertake a permanent restoration of moral 
resting an ^f^ ^^gt found it UDon knowledffc. Earlier philo- 
sophy had been unable to satisfy the requirements 
of the times, because it had been directed exclusively 
to a study of nature ; because to the mass of men it 
did not give sufficient preliminary education for the 
work of life, nor to the thinking spirit any clue to 
the problem of its being and destiny. New philo- 
sophy must meet this want, must direct its attention 
to the sphere of mind and morals, and work into 
shape the ample supply of ethical ideas underlying 
religion, poetry and received custom. Earlier sys- 
tems had succumbed before the doubts of sophistry, 
inasmuch as their method was too one-sided^ depend- 
ing too little on definite conceptions respecting the 
nature and problem of knowledge to be able to with- 
stand a searching criticism which destroyed their 
several platforms by means of each other, and argued 
from the change and uncertainty of the phenomena 
of the senses that knowledge must be impossible. 
No building that would last could be erected except 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


by laying the foundations deeper, except by finding Chap. 
some means of supplementing these several points ' 

of view by each other, of harmonising them when 
contradictory in some higher bond of union,* and of 
grasping the unchangeable essence of things amid 
changing appearances. The means wanted was sup- 
plied by Dialectic, the art of forming conceptions, 
and the result was philosophical Idealism. Thus the 
knowledge of the faults and deficiencies in existing 
circumstances led naturally to the turn taken by 
philosophy after the time of Socrates. Scientific 
ethics became necessary because of the tottering of 
moral convictions ; a wider enquiry, because of the 
narrowness of the philosophy of nature ; a critical 
method, because of the contradiction of dogmatic 
systems ; a philosophy of conceptions, because of the 
uncertainty of the observations of the senses ; Ideal- 
ism, because of the unsatisfactory nature of a materia- 
listic view of the world. 

Precisely these features distinguish the Socratic (2) The 
philosophy from that of the previous period. The u^'puh^ 
pre-Socratic philosophy was simply and solely a ^oph^ a 
philosophy of nature ; ^ the transitional philosophy nature; 
of the Sophists was the first to leave nature for ^]^ ^^<^' 

* tie oj con- 

ethical and dialectical questions. After Socrates ceptions, 
the dialectical tendency is supreme. His own atten- 
tion was exclusively occupied with determining con- 
ceptions, and enquiries respecting virtue. With 
rare exceptions the imperfect Socratic schools con- 

' Comp. Zeller^s Phil, der » In the sense given, Und, I. 
Griechen, Part I. p. 854, 860. 165. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, fined themselves to the same field ; Plato, founding 

__ J his system in conceptions, completing it in morals, 

forms a marked contrast to the natural philosophers, 
who went before him. Even in Aristotle who treats 
of physics in detail and with an evident prefer- 
ence for the subject, they are only a single branch 
of a system, and in point of value subordinate to 

Such an increase of territory showed that the 
whole platform of philosophy had changed. Why 
else should thought have embraced other and more 
extended materials, had it not been changed in it- 
self and therefore no longer contented itself with 
what had been before ? For the same reason the 
philosophic method was a diflferent one. In previous 
philosophy thought had dealt directly with its ob- 
^.Cha/rac' lect, as such. In the Socratic and post-Socratic 

terigtic of '^ .,-,.,/, i ., 

thisperiod Systems it deals m the first place with conceptions 
u its d<W' j^jj^j ^jjjy with objects indirectly, through the medium 
coneep' of conceptions. The older systems asked, without 
further ado, what predicates belonged to things ; for 
instance, whether what is real admits of motion or 
not — how and out of what the world is made. The 
Socratic philosophy ever asks, in the first place, what 
things are in themselves according to their concep- 
tion, thinking not otherwise to obtain information 
respecting their properties and conditions than by 
the help of the conception of things thoroughly 
mastered.^ No conception of a thing can, however, 

* Compare, not to mention ment in the Phaedo, 99, D : Af ter 
other passages, the clear state- having vainly busied himself 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 



be obtained, except by grouping together its various Chap. 

aspects and qualities, by smoothing down apparent .;__ 

contradictions, by separating what is lasting from 
what is changing, in a word, by that critical method, (})i>efini' 
which Socrates introduced, and which Plato and Aris- ooncep- 
totle elaborated and developed. Former philosophers 
having gone forth from particular prominent features 
to arrive at the essence of things, and having failed 
because of their one-sidedness ? it was now require^ 
that all the properties of an object should be taken 
into account and weighed from every side, before a 
judgment could be formed thereupon. Thus the 
philosophy of conceptions steps into the place of dog- 
matism. In this way reflection which by means 
of sophistry had destroyed the older philosophy was 
taken into the service of the new philosophy; the 
various aspects under which things may be regarded, 
were brought together and referred to each other ; but 
not content with the negative conclusion that our 
notions cannot be true because they contain opposite 
determinations, the new philosophy aimed at uniting 
these opposites in one, and showing that true science 
is not aflfected by contradiction, inasmuch as it only 
refers to that which unites opposites in itself, and 
excludes contradiction. This pursuit of knowledge 

with the enquiries of the na- r&v adad^ir^uv iinx^ip&if Airrcdfat 

tural philosophers he declares aifT&y.)ll9o^tBiifioixpfiyat throbs 

himself convinced, that he has X&yovs Karcuf>vy6irra iv iK^ivois 

only got into deeper darkness a-Kovtiv rwv 6muv r^v h.K4\9uav 

by directing his enqniries into (the true essence of things), 

things in themselves. (t4 6vra i.e. instead of Tpdyfuvraf X^oi, 

ffKOTwv . . . fi\4xuv xphs rii instead of iproj &A^0€ia ruv 

rp6iyfuifra ro7s ififieuri icetl ^Kdcry tvrwv. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, through conceptions is the common peculiarity of 
' the Socratic, the Platonic, and the Aristotelian philo- 
sophy. That the lesser Socratic schools follow the 
same bent will be seen hereafter. 

If only conceptions can give true knowledge, it 
follows that true being can only belong to that which 
is known by means of conceptions ; that is, to the 
essence of things, as this presents itself in thought. 
This essential being cannot, however, be sought 
for in matter. Anaxagoras had early realised that 
matter could only become a world by means of spirit ; 
since then the old materialistic physics had been 
discredited by sophistry ; nothing remained but to 
regard the form and purpose of things, the immaterial 
part in them as most essential for determining the 
conceptions, nay, even to assign to it a true reality 
underlying the appearance. In this way the Socratic 
philosophy led logically to Idealism. 
(2yTlieory The beginnings of this Idealism are unmistak- 

of concep- ^^^ ^y^j^ jj^ gocrates. His indiflference to physical 

tt07i9 ex- . 

jpanded hy enquiries and his preference for ethical ones prove 

pZ^^md conclusively that he attributed to the inner world a 

AHstcftu, much higher value than to the outer world. Eesolve 

his theory of final causes applied to nature into the 

metaphysical elements out of which it is composed ; 

the conclusion is inevitable that not the material of 

which a thing is made, but the conception which 

gives it shape, makes a thing what it is, and that 

this accordingly represents its true nature. This 

Idealism is more pronounced in the school of Megara ; 

and in Plato it runs through all parts of his philo- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


sophy side by side with a current of pre-Socratic Chap. 
doctrines. Even Aristotle is not faithless to this view. ' 

Whilst denying the independent existence of the 
Platonic ideas, he nevertheless asserts that reality 
consists not in matter but in form, and that the 
highest reality belongs to spirit free from matter. 
On this ground he states even in his physics, agree- 
ing herein with his predecessors, that final causes are 
higher than material causes. Compared therefore 
with the natural philosophers of the pre-Socratic 
period, even Aristotle may fairly be called an Idealist. 
Starting from a consideration of nature, the pre- 
Socratic philosophy made it its chief business to en- 
quire into the essence and causes of external things, 
for this purpose going back to their material proper- 
ties. An entirely differenf character is displayed in 
the philosophy founded by Socrates. This begins 
with the study of self rather than the study of 
nature — with ethics rather than physics. It aims at 
explaining phenomena, first of all by means of con- 
ceptions, and only in the second place naturally. It 
substitutes an attitude of enquiry for dogmatic state 
ment, idealism in the place of materialism. Mind 
is now regarded as the higher element compared with 
matter. The philosophy of nature has developed 
into a philosophy of conceptions. 

Not that as yet the claim was advanced on be- c. -^'*- 
half of the human mind to be the measure of truth ^cmtic 
and the end of science. Far from reaching the sub- from post- 

° Aingtote- 

jective idealism of Fichte — an idealism in fact only 
possible in modem times — the philosophy of this ^^l^^V- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, period is not nearly so subjective as the post-Aristo- 

___J telian schools.* In them the interests of speculation 

are subordinated to those of morals ; knowledge is 
regarded only as a means to virtue and liappiness; 
whereas the independent value of science is fully ad- 
mitted by the great philosophers of the present 
period. To them knowledge is an end in itself; 
speculation is the highest and noblest thing ; action 
is made to depend upon knowledge, not knowledge 
to depend upon the aims of active life. Only a few 
one-sided followers of Socrates, who, however, prove 
nothing as to the general tendency, are an exception 
to this rule. 
(}) It still ^ simple belief in the possibility of knowledge 
the attain- is here displayed which was wanting in the post- 
k^Udge Aristotelian philosophy. The doubts of the Sophists 
to he^^ are refuted, but in the mind of the philosopher 
there is no need of overcoming doubt. The problem 
proposed is. How can true knowledge be obtained, 
in what kind of mental representations must it be 
sought, how must the conception of it be deter- 
mined? No doubt is felt but that knowledge is 
really possible. The search for a test — the funda- 
mental question of the later schools — ^is altogether 
unknown ^ to the thinkers of this time. Equally 
unknown to them are the answers to that problem. 

^ Take for instance the The- as to the possibility of know- 
aetetus; the question raised ledge involved in the enquiry- 
there as to the conception of for a standard, 
knowledge (iviar-fi/iri 8, ri irorc « Compare ZeUer, 1. c. ; Intro- 
Txiydxv^i tv ; Theaetet. 146, E.) duction to Part HI. and I. 137. 
is quite different from the doubt 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



They did not, as did the Epicureans and Stoics, cut Chap. 
short the question by practically begging it. They ^; 

did not, as did the Sceptics, despair of knowledge. 
They did not, as did the Neoplatonists, resort to 
higher revelations. They were content to look to 
well-regulated thought for the source of truth. 
Even that branch of science, the independent pur- 
suit of which was much neglected by later thinkers — 
physics — was studied in this epoch with success* 
Socrates and the majority of his pupils may have 
neglected it, but not so Plato ; and Aristotle carries it 
to a point final in the main for nearly two thousand 
years. If the post- Aristotelian Ethics proved at last 
fidthless to the principles of the old Greek morality, 
partly under the influence of a world-wide extension, 
partly owing to their severance from politics, owing 
to the withdrawal of the moral consciousness from 
the outer world, owing to a dumb resignation and a 
sour asceticism ; the difference of epochs in this 
respect is simply seen by recalling the many-sided 
sympathies of Socrates, with his cheerful enjoyment 
of life, and his devoted attachment to his country, 
or the teaching of Plato concerning the state, or 
that of Aristotle concerning virtue j^nd society, or 
the relation of the Cyrenaic to the Epicurean doc- 
trine of happiness.^ 

Is it true that the philosophy of this second (2) JHs- 
period attempts in ethics to get beyond the established ^^^ *'* 
bounds ? It supplements the propriety of custom by a 
theory of morals and conscious action. It distinguishes 
» Comp. Zellery 1. c, i. 139. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Ohap. more definitely than the ordinary view between the 
' outward deed and the intention. It requires a 
rising above the life of the senses to what is ideal. 
Light is thrown on the meaning and motives of 
moral consciousness. A universal philanthropy is 
taught, which is not lost in local patriotism; and 
accordingly the state is only regarded as an institu- 
tion for the attainment of virtue and happiness, and 
not as the final moral cause. For all that this period 
is far removed from the apathy of either Stoic or 
Epicurean, from the imperturbability of the Sceptic, 
from the asceticism of the Neoplatonist. It seeks 
not to sever man in his moral activity from nature ; 
with Aristotle it regards virtue as the perfection ^f 
a natural gift ; with Plato it advances from the love 
of what is sensibly beautiful, to the love of what is 
morally beautiful. It requires the philosopher to 
work for his fellowmen. The world-citizenship of a 
later time is absent ; absent too is its nationality and 
political life. Even in this respect, it holds the 
classic mean between a slavish surrender to the outer 
world, and a uarrow withdrawal therefrom. 

Compared with the pre-Socratic era, the age of 
Socrates is characterised by the diversion of philo- 
sophy from external nature to thought or to ideas. 
Compared with the following age, it is marked by 
the real character of its thought, that is, by the fact 
that the thinker is not ultimately thrown back on 
himself and the certainty of his own knowing, but 
on attainiug to the knowledge of what is in itself 
real and true. In short its. theory of a knowledge of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


conceptions determines its character. From this Chap. 
theory may he deduced its breadth of view reaching ^^' 
alike beyond the physical one-sidedness of the pre- 
Socratic, and the moral one-sidedDess of the post- 
Aristotelian schools, its critical method in opposition 
to the earlier and later dogmatism, and its idealism, 
transfiguring the whole aspect of the outer world, 
without, however, entailing any withdrawal therefrom. 

The development of this theory was carried D. De- 
out in a simple and natural order by three philoso- ^ ^^ 

phic schools, the founders of which belong: to three Socratic 
. . , „ , philoso- 

successive generations, and are personally connected pky, 

as teachers and pupils.* First comes Socrates assert- 
ing that the standard of human thought and action 
lies in a knowledge of conceptions, and teaching 
his followers to acquire this knowledge by dealing 
with notions critically. Hence Plato concluded that . 
objective conceptions are in the true sense the only 
real things, a derivative reality belonging to all 
other things, a view which he upheld by a more 
critical analvsis, and developed to a system. Lastly, 
Aristotle arrived at the conclusion that in a thing ^ 
the conception itself constitutes its real essence and 
moving power. By an exhaustive analysis of the 
scientific method, he showed how conceptions were to 
be formed and applied to particulars, and by a most 
comprehensive enquiry into the several parts of the 
universe, he examined the laws and connection of 
conceptions, and the thoughts which determine all 

that really is. Socrates had as yet no system. He (i) So- 
> Comp. Zeller, 1, 9, 136, 142. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, had not even any material groundwork. Convinced 

' that only in acquiring conceptions is true knowledge 

to be found, that true virtue consists in acting 
according to conceptions, that even the world has 
been ordered in accordance with definite conceptions, 
and therefore shows design, in any given case he 
tries by a critical testing of prevailing notions to 
gain a conception of the object with which he has 
to deal, and to this he devotes all his powers, to the 
conclusion of every other interest. But he never 
went beyond this fonnal treatment. His teaching 
was confined to general requirements and presump- 
tions. His importance lies not in a new view of 
things, but in a new conception of knowledge, and 
in the way he forms this conception, in his view of 
the problem and method of science, in the strength 
of his philosophical bent, and in the simplicity of his 
philosophical life. 
(2) Plato. The Socratic search for conceptions has grown in 

Plato to a discovery of them, to a certainty of pos- 
sessing them, and gazing upon them. With him 
objective thoughts or ideas are the only real things. 
r Mere idealess existence or matter as such is simply 
non-existent ; all things else are made up partly of 
what is and partly of what is not ; they therefore are 
only real in proportion to the part they have in the 
idea. Grranting that this is in advance of the 
8ocratic view, it is no less certain that it follows 
logically from that view. The Platonic ideas, as 
Aristotle rightly understood them,* are the general 

> Met. i, 6, 987, b, 1. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


conceptions, which Socrates had arrived at, separated Chap. 



from the world of appearance. They are also the 
central point of the speculations of Aristotle. With 
him the conception or the form constitutes the 
essence, the reality, and is as it were the soul of 
things ; only form without matter, simple spirit (3) Arts- 
thinking of itself, is absolutely real ; only thought is 
to man the most intense reality, and therefore also 
the most intense pleasure in life. Yet there is this 
difference between Aristotle and Plato, that whereas 
Plato separates the conception from the appearance, 
regarding it as independent — as an IBda^ Aristotle, 
places it m things themselves, without, however, 
implying that form stands in need of matter to be- 
come actual, since it is in itself actual. Moreover, 
Aristotle will not remove the idea out of the world 
of appearances, because it cannot in a state of 
separation serve as a connecting link between indi- 
vidual things, nor can it be the cause and substance 
of things. Thus the theory is seen to be one and the 
same which Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle represent 
at different stages of growth. In Socrates it is un- 
developed, but full of vitality, pushing itself forward 
through the husk of earlier philosophy ; in Plato it 
has grown to a pure and independent existence ; and 
in Aristotle it has overspread the whole world of 
being and consciousness, exhausting itself in the 
effort, and moving towards a perfect transformation 
in later systems. Socrates, so to speak, is the preg- 
nant germ, Plato the rich bloom, Aristotle the ripe 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 




(4) Diffi- 
caused by 

fruit of Greek philosophy at the perfection of its 
historical growth. 

One phenomenon only will not fall into this his- 
torical chain, but threatens to break the continuity 
of Greek thought, viz. the imperfect attempts to 
expand the Socratic principle which are seen in the 
Megarian, the Cynic, and the Cyrenaic schools. In 
these schools a real and essential progress of the 
philosophic consciousness was not indeed to be found, 
inasmuch as philosophy, which had arrived at any 
rate in principle even in the time of Socrates at 
objective knowledge, such as could only be found 
in a system, was by them limited to subjective train- 
ing of thought and character. Nor yet can they be 
said to be wholly unimportant. For not only were 
they, at a later period starting points for Stoicism, 
Epicureanism, and Scepticism, but they also pro- 
moted, independently of this, many scientific enqui- 
ries, by means of which they exercised an imdeniable 
influence on Plato and Aristotle. The same case 
occurs elsewhere, and is met with, even in this epoch, 
in the older Academy, and in the Peripatetic schools, 
both of which had no independent influence on the 
growth of philosophy, but yet cannot be overlooked 
in its history. Of all these phenomena one and the 
same thing must be said. Their chief importance lies 
not in their having expanded a principle theoretically, 
but in their having been practically helpful in ad- 
vancing it, by preserving the older forms of culture 
for cotemporaries to see, here and there, improving 
and widening them, and by thus keeping the philo- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


sopher's mind in sight of a many-sidedness, without Chap. 
which later systems would never have included the ' 

products of the earlier ones. 

This permanence of philosophic schools is not 
therefore met with until philosophy had attained a 
certain general extension, in Greece not until the 
time of Socrates and Plato. Whereas Plato, by sum- 
ming up aU the pre-Socratic schools, put an end to 
their existence ; after his time no theory was put for- 
ward which did not propagate itself in a school until 
the time that Neoplatonism put the coping-stone on 
Greek philosophy, in and with which all previous 
systems were extinguished. In later times, however 
many intellectual varieties rise up side by side, only a 
few of them possess a distinct life of their own. The 
rest are a traditional revival of previous views, and 
cannot, in considering the peculiar philosophical 
character of an age, be taken further into account. 
They need therefore only to be mentioned by the 
historian in a passing way. This statement applies 
to the inaperfect followers of Socrates. Their doc- 
trines are not an advancement in principle, but only 
incomplete reproductions of Socratic views, and con- 
nected with Socrates in the same way that the elder 
Academy is with Plato, or the Peripatetic school 
with Aristotle. 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Chap. Therb is no instance on record of a philosopher 

^?^^ whose importance as a thinker is so closely bound 

up with his personal character as a man as it was in 
the case of Socrates. Every system, it is true, as 
being the work of a definite person, may best be 
studied in the light of the peculiarities, culture, 
misfortunes and circumstances of its author ; yet in 
the case of others it is easier to separate the fruits 
of their intellectual life from the stock on which 
they grew ; doctrines can generally be received and 
handed down quite unchanged by men of very dif- 
ferent characters. In the case of Socrates this is 
not nearly so easy. His teaching aimed far less at 
definite doctrines, which can be equally well em- 
braced by different men, than at a special tone of 
life and thought, at a philosophic character and the 
art of intellectual enquiry, in short, at a something not 
to be directly imparted and handed down unaltered. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


but to be propagated freely, others being stirred Chap. 

up to an analogous development of their peculiarities. _ 
So much the more anxious should this make us for 
detailed information as to the training of a character 
which has had so powerful an influence on history. 
Here a very common diflSculty meets us. What 
Socrates was, and how he acted in his riper years, is 
well known ; but only the roughest outline is pre- 
served of the circumstances of his life. Over the 
earlier part of it deep darkness rests. For the history 
of his intellectual and moral training, if we except a 
few scanty and for the most part untrustworthy 
statements of earlier writers, we are left entirely to 

The youth and early manhood of Socrates fall in 
the most brilliant period of Grecian history. ' Born 
during the last years of the Persian war,^ he was 

* The best ascertained date been condemned in April or 

in the life of Socrates is the May 399 B.C., and have suf- 

date of his death. According f ered death in May or June the 

to Bemetri'UA Ph/ilereus and same year. Since at the time 

Apollodorus (in Diog, ii. 44), of his death he had passed his 

it happened in Olympiad 95, seventieth year {PlatOy Apol. 

1 (^IHod. xiv. 37), probably in 17, D.), but not long (Crito, , 

the second half of the month 52, E. calls him in round num- 

Thargelion. For at this time bers seventy), his birth cannot 

must be placed the return of have fallen later than 01. 77, 3, 

the Delian 6€a>pls, which, ac- or 469 b.g. If his birthday is 

cording to Plato (Phaedo, 59, rightly fixed for the 6th Thar- 

D.), arrived the day before the gelion (ApoU. in Diog, ii. 44, 

execution of Socrates. Comp. Plitt. Qu. Conv. viii. 1, 1, 

K. F. Hermann, De theoria .Mlian, V. H. ii. 26), and was 

Deliaca, Ind. Sc^ol. Crotting. not past at the time of the 

1846. About a month earlier judicial enquiry, we should 

(XeTwphon, Mem. iv. 8, 2, says have to go back for it to 470 

definitely thirty days), i.e. in or even 471 b.c. (Comp. 

the month Munychion, the ju- Bockh, Corp. Inscript. ii. 321 ; 

dicial enquiry took place. Hermann, 1. c. 7). 
Socrates must accordingly have The question then arises whe- 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 



. Chap. 

nearly cotemporary with all those great men who 
adorned the age of Pericles. As a citizen of Athens 
he participated in all those elements of cultm^e, 
which thanks to its unrivalled fertility of thought, 
congregated in that great metropolis. If poverty and 
low birth somewhat impeded his using them,^ still 

ther these statements respect- 
ing the time of his birth are 
facts or a mere fiction; and 
whether the birthday of So- 
crates, the /AcuctfTiKifr, was not 
placed on the 6th of Thargelion 
to make it agree with that of 
Artemis, as Plato's was made 
to agree with Apollo's. If so, 
he may have been bom in 
469 B.C. (Olym. 77, 3). Any- 
how, Apollodorus, placing it in 
468 B.C. (01. 77, 4), (2)iag, 1. c.) 
is wrong. Nor can the state- 
ment noticed by Diogenes that 
he was only sixty years of age 
weigh against the clear lan- 
guage of Plato, and probably 
rests upon a transcriber's mis- 
take. Hermann's observation 
(Plat. Phil. 666, De Philos. Jon. 
aetat. ii. A. 39) that Socrates 
could not have been bom in the 
third or fourth year of an 
Olympiad, since he was twenty- 
five {Syties. Calv. Enc. c. 17) 
at the time of his interview 
with Protagoras, which inter- 
view happened (PlatOy Parm.) 
At the time of the Panathenaea, 
and consequently in the third 
year of an Olympiad, will not 
hold water. Supposing the 
interview to be even a fact, 
which is very doubtful, the 
remark of Synesius (Calv. Enc. 
c. 17) respecting the age of 
Socrates is a pure guess, and 
altogether refuted by the lan- 

guage of the Theaetet. 183, F., 
and the Parmen. 127, C, vdw 
y4oSf ffip69pa vios. 

* That his father Sophronis- 
cus (Xwi. Hellen. i. 7, 16 ; 
PlatOy Lach. 180, D.; how 
Bpiphanius, Exp. Fid. 1087, A., 
comes to call him Elbaglus, is 
difficult to say) was a sculptor, 
may be gathered from Diog. ii. 
18. The services of his mother 
Phaenarete as a midwife are 
known from Plato's Thesetetus, 
149, A. As regards circum- 
stances, it is stated by Demet- 
rius Phaler. inPlv^ta^oh's Life of 
Aristides, c. 1, that he not only 
possessed land, but had seventy 
minae— a considerable sum — ^at 
interest; but this statement 
is at variance with the testi- 
mony of the best witnesses. 
The reasons for it are without 
doubt quite as weak as those 
for a similar statement respect- 
ing Aristides, and arose seem- 
ingly from some Peripatetic's 
wish to find authorities for his 
view of the worth of riches. 
Plato (Apol. 23, B., 38, A. ; 
Rep. i. 337, D.) and Xenophon 
(CEc. ii. 2 ; xi. 3 ; Mem. i. 2, 1) 
represent him not only as very 
poor, vAw /iiKph KeKrfiix4vos and 
iv irtvlq, fivpltj^ but they also 
give reasons for thinking so. 
Plato makes him say, perhaps 
he could pay a fine of a mina, 
and Xenophon depicts him as 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


in the Athens of Pericles, not even the lowest on the Chap. 

city roll was debarred from enjoying the rich pro- .' 

fusion of art, which was for the. most part devoted 
to the purposes of the state, nor yet from associating 
with men in the highest ranks of life. This free 
personal intercourse did far more to advance intel- 
lectual culture at that time than teaching in schools ; 
Socrates had reached manhood before the Sophists 
introduced a formal system of instruction. Intelli- 
gible as it thus becomes, how an energetic man in the 
position of Socrates could find many incitements to 
and means of culture, and how even he Could be 
carried away by the wonderful elevation of his native 
city, still nothing very accurate is known respect- 
ing the routes by which he advanced to his subse- 
quent greatness.* We may suppose that he enjoyed 
the usual education in gymnastics and music,^ al- 
though the stories which are told of his teachers in 

estimating his whole property, Crito, 50, D. Even apart from 
inclusive of his cottage, at live this testimony there could be 
minae. The story of Libanins no doubt. Porphyry's state- 
(Apol. Socr. t. iii. p. 7), accord- ment (in Theod, Cur. Gr. Aff. 
ing to which Socrates inherited i. 29, p. 8) — a statement un- 
eighty minsB from his father, doubtedly derived from Aris- 
and lost them by lending, bear- toxenus — that Socrates was too 
ing his loss with extreme com- uneducated to be able to read, 
posure, looks like a story in- need scarcely be refuted by 
tended to show the indifference authorities such as Xen, Mem. 
of a philosopher to wealth, i. 6, 14 ; iv. 7, 3, 6. It is clearly 
Had Plato and Xenophon an exaggeration of the well- 
known the story, we may be known Airai8ew<r(a (JPlato, Symp. 
sure they would not have ^21, E., 199, A., Apol. 17, B.), 
omitted to tell it. which only belongs to the 

» See the work of K. F. Her- satirical outside of the philoso- 

mann^ De Socratis magistris et pher, but was readily taken 

disciplina juvenili, Marb. 1837. hold of and exaggerated by 

» Plato says so plainly in the jealousy in later times. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





music ^ deserve no credit. We hear further that he 
learnt enough of geometry to be able to grapple with 
difficult problems, and that he was not ignorant of 
astronomy ; ^ but whether he acquired this knowledge 
in his youth, or only in later years, and who was his 
teacher, we cannot tell.* We see him, in mature 
years, in relations more or less close with a number 
of characters who must have exerted a most varied 
and stirring influence on his mind.* It is beyond 

' According to Max, Tyr. 
xxxviii. 4, Conniis was Mb 
teacher in music, and Euenus 
in poetry. Alexander (in 
Diog. ii. 19) calls him a pupil 
of Damon, whereas Sextus 
(Matth. vi. 13) makes Lampo 
his teacher. All these notices 
have undoubtedly come from 
passages in Plato, which are ir- 
relevant. Socrates calls Connus 
his teacher (Menex. 235, E., 
and Euthyd. 272, C), but ac- 
cording to the latter passage 
he was a man at the time, so 
that he must have gone to 
Connus simply with a view to 
revive a skill long since ac- 
quired. It is more probable 
(however often such notices 
are given as historical, and 
with further details: Cio, ad 
Fam. ix. 22; Quint, i. 10; 
Val. Max. viii. 7 ; 3iog, ii. 32 ; 
Stob. Flor. 29, 68) that the 
passages in Plato refer to the 
Connus of the comic poet 
Ameipsias, from which the 
whole fabrication comes. See 
JTermann, p. 24. Damon's 
name is mentioned in the 
Laches, 180, D., 197, D. ; Rep. 
iii. 400, B., 424, C, in which 
passages, however, this musi- 

cian appears as the friend 
rather than as the instructor of 
Socrates, and as an important 
political character, from his 
connection with Pericles. The 
Phaedo; 60, C, and the Apology, 
20, A., mention Euenus, yet not 
as a teacher, and hardly even 
as an acquaintance of Socrates. 
And lastly, the Lampo of Sex- 
tus probably owes his existence 
to a mistake. Sextus may have 
written Damon instead of Con- 
nus {8tohcBU8, Flor. 29, 68, has 
Connus in the same connection) 
— or else Lamprus (a name 
which occurs in the Menexenus, 
though not as that of a teacher 
of Socrates), and transcribers 
made it Lampo. The celebrated 
prophet of this name cannot of 
course have been intended. 
» Xen. Mem. iv. 7, 3, 5. 

* Jlfo^miM 1. c. says Theodore 
of Cyrene, but this is only an 
inference from Plato's Theaete- 
tus, and not warranted by it. 

* For instance, the Sophists 
Protagoras, Grorgias, Polus, 
Hippias, Thrasymachus, but 
especially Prodicus. Cf . Plato, 
Prot., Gorg., Hip., Rep. i. Xen, 
Mem. ii. 1, 21 ; iv. 4, 6, See, 
Also Euripides, who was on 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



doubt that he owed much to such relations; but 
these Mends cannot in strict accuracy be described 
as his, teachers, although we may often find them 
so-called ; ^ neither is any light derived hence for 
the history of his early training. We further meet 
with expressions which show that he must have had 
a general acquaintance with the views of Parmenides 
and Heraclitus, of the Atomists, of Anaxagoras, and 
perhaps of Empedocles.^ Whence he derived this 
knowledge, it is impossible to say. The stories that 
he received instruction in his younger years from 
Anaxagoras and Archelaus, can neither be supported 
by satisfactory evidence, nor are they probable in 
themselves.* Still more uncertain is his supposed inter- 


such intimate terms with him 
that the comic poets charged 
him with borrowing his trage- 
dies from Socrates. (Cf. BUfg, 
a, 18; uEhan, V. H. ii. 13. 
Also Aspasia; cf. Xen. (Ec. 3, 
14 ; Mem. ii. 6, 36 ; ^schines 
in C^, de Invent, i. 31 ; in 
Max, Tyr, xxxviii. 4 ; conf . 
Hermann De iSsch. relig. 16 
Hermesianaz in Athen. ziii. 
599, a; Diotima (P^oto, Symp.). 
Respecting several of these we 
know not whether Plato was 
true to facts in bringing them 
into connection with Socrates. 
* Socrates calls himself in 
Plato a pupil of Prodicus 
{ZeUer, 1. c. i. 873, D.), of Aspa- 
sia (Menex. 235, E.), and of 
Diotima (Symp. 201, D.), all of 
which statements have been re- 
peated in past and present 
times. See Hermawny Soc. 
Mag. p. 11. We may suppose 
that the instruction given by 

the two ladies consisted in free 
personal intercourse, even al- 
lowing that Diotima is a real 
person, and the Menexenus a 
genuine dialogue ; not only 
this, but the same applies 
equally to Prodicus. Maximus 
calls Ischomachus his teacher 
in agriculture, but he probably 
arrived at this conclusion by 
misunderstanding Xen, (Ec. 6, 
17. The story that he was a 
pupil of Diagoras of Melos (the 
Scholiast on Arutqph. Nubes, v. 
828), is obviously false. 

2 Xen. Mem. i. 1, 14 ; iv. 7, 6. 

• The authorities are: for 
Anaxagoras, Aristid, Or. xlv., 
p. 21, and the nameless authori- 
ties referred to by IHag, ii. 19 
and 45, whom Suidas ^Kpdr, 
according to custom follows; 
for Archelaus, Diog, ii. 16, 19, 
23, X. 12, and those mentioned 
by him, lo, Aristoxenus, and 
Diodes. Besides these Cicero, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





course with Zeno and Pannenides. Even little is 
known of the philosophical writings with which he 

Sextus, Porphyry (in Theod. 
Cur. Gr. Aff. xii. 67, p. 175), 
Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 
1. 302, A.), Simplicius, Ensebius 
(Pr. Bv. X. 14, 13, xiv. 16, 11, 
XV. 61, 11), Hippolytus, the spu- 
rious Galen, and a few others ; 
conf. Krisohe, Forsch. 210. 
The evidence in favour of 
Anaxagoras is very insufficient, 
and the language respecting 
him used by Socrates {Plato, 
Phaedo, 97, B. and Xenophon, 
Mem. iv. 7, 6) makes it impro- 
bable that he knew him person- 
ally, or was acquainted with 
his views, except from books 
and hearsay, which of course 
does not exclude any casual or 
accidental intercourse. The 
traditions respecting his rela- 
tions to Archelaus are better 
authenticated; yet even here 
there is much that is suspicious. 
Of the two earliest authorities, 
lo and Aristoxenus, the former, 
who was an older contemporary 
of Socrates, does not make Ar- 
chelaus his instructor. All that 
is stated in Diog, ii. 23, on his 
authority, is that Socrates, when 
a young man, travelled with 
Archelaus to Samos.- This asser- 
tion, however, flatly contradicts 
Plato (Crito, 52, B.), who says 
that Socrates never left Athens, 
except once to go to the Isth- 
mian games, or when on mili- 
tary duty. Miiller, however, 
gets over the difficulty (Frag. 
Hist. Gr. ii. 49, N. 9) by sup- 
posing that Plato was only re- 
ferring to Socrates when grown 
It is just possible that Plato 

may not have known of a jour- 
ney which Socrates took in his 
earlier years. That he should 
have knowingly omitted to 
mention it, as AJherti Socr. 40 
supposes, is hardly likely. It 
is also possible some mistake 
may have been made. lo may 
not have meant a journey to 
Samos, but his taking part in 
the expedition to Samos of 441 
B.C., which, strange to say, is 
not mentioned in the Apology, 
28, E. Or the error may lie 
with Diogenes, who applied to 
Socrates what lo had said of 
some one else. Or it may not 
be the lo of Chios, but some 
later individual who thus 
writes of Socrates. Certain it 
is, that lo's testimony does not 
prove Socrates to have been a 
pupil of Archelaus. Even if the 
relation were proved to have 
existed in Socrates' younger 
days, it would still be a ques- 
tion whether his philosophy 
was influenced thereby. 

Aristoxenus goes further. Ac- 
cording to his account in Diog. 
ii. 16, Socrates was the fa- 
vourite of Archelaus, or as 
Porphyry represents the mat- 
ter, he became acquainted with 
Archelaus in his seventeenth 
year, lived with him many 
years, and was by him initiated 
into philosophy. We shall have 
occasion to notice hereafter how 
little dependence can be placed 
on the statements of Aristoxe- 
nus respecting Socrates. Were 
the other statement which is 
to be found in Diogenes closely 
connected with this one, that 

Digitized by VjOOQIC_ 



was acquainted.^ A well-known passage in Plato's 
Phaedo * describes him as advancing from the older 
natural science and the philosophy of Anaxagoras to 
his own peculiar views. But it is most improbable 
that this passage gives a historical account of his in- 
tellectual development, if for no other reason, at 
least for this one,^ that the course of development 
there leads to the Platonic theory of conceptions; let 
alone the fact that it is by no means certain that 
Plato himself possessed any fuller information re- 
specting the intellectual progress of his teacher. 

No doubt he began life by learning his father's 
trade,* a trade which he probably never practised. 


Socrates did not become a 
pupil of Archelaus till after 
the condemnation of Anaxago- 
ras, its worthlessness would be 
thoroughly shown ; for Socrates 
was seventeen when Anaxago- 
ras left Athens, and had long 
passed his years of pupilage. 
The assertions of Aristoxenus, 
however, are in themselves im- 
probable. For supposing So- 
crates to have been on intimate 
terms with Archelaus, when 
young, twenty years before 
Anaxagoras was banished, how 
is it conceivable that he should 
not have known Anaxagoras ? — 
and if he was instructed by 
him in philosophy, how is it 
that neither Xenophon nor 
Plato nor Aristotle ever men- 
tion Archelaus ? All the later 
authorities for the relation of 
the two philosophers appear to 
rest on Aristoxenus. As there 
is nothing in the teaching of 
Archelaus, with which the So*- 

cratic teaching can be connec- 
ted, it seems probable that he 
had little to do with the philo- 
sophy of Socrates, even though 
Socrates may have known him 
and his teaching. Besides, 
Socrates (in Xen. Sym.) calls 
himself an ahrovpyhs Tijs ^iXo- 
ao^iasy a self-taught philoso- 

* He seems to have known 
those of Anaxagoras. A sup- 
posed allusion to the writings 
of Heraclitus (in Diog. ii. 22), 
is uncertain, nor is it estab- 
lished that he ever studied the 
Pythagorean doctrines {Phut, 
Curios. 2). 

* 96, A. 

* As 
Mus. N.F. 
Socr. 13; 
d. Plat. Schr. 
Plat, L., 297. 

* Timon and Duris in Diog, 
ii. 19. Timaeus, accordiag to 
Porphyry in Cyril c. Jul. 208, 

xix. 514 ; Alberti 
Ueherwegy Unters 
94 ; SteinhaHy 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




and certainly soon gave up.^ Considering it to be 
his special calling to labour for the moral and intel- 
lectual improvement of himself and others, this con- 
viction forced itself so strongly upon him, as to 
appear to him in the light of a divine revelation.* 
He was, moreover, confirmed therein by a Delphic 
oracle, which, of course, must not be regarded as the 
cause of, but rather as an additional support to, his 
reforming zeal.^ How and when this conviction first 

A. Plato (Rep. vi. 496, B.) 
seems to have had the case of 
Socrates in view. 

' Porphyry leaves it open 
whether Socrates or his fatiier 
practised sculpture ; nor is any- 
thing proved by the story that 
the Graces on the Acropolis 
were his work (IHog, Pans. i. 
22). No allusions are found in 
Aristophanes, Plato, and Xeno- 
phon to the sculptor's art. 
Hence we may conclude that 
if Socrates ever practised it, he 
gave it up long before the play 
of the Clouds was acted. Duris 
and Demetrius of Byzantium 
(in Diog, ii. 19), in stating that 
he was a slave, and that Crito 
removed him from a workshop 
and cared for his education, 
appear to confound him with 

I Plato, Apol. 33, C. : ifiol 8i 
rovro .... irpoarriroKrai tvh 
Tov $€0V irpdrrciv Kotl ix fxayrtiwv 
Kcit i^ iwwvlav Kol iraanX rp&ir<f, 
firep rls irorc K(d AWri $ela fioipa 
apOp<&ir(p Kol ^lovv trpoaira^* 

• According to the well- 
known story in the Apol. 20, 
E., which has been repeated 
countless times by succeeding 

writers, the matter stands thus : 
Chserephonhad asked at Delphi 
if there were a wiser man than 
Socrates, and the priestess had 
answered in the negative. 
The Iambics which purport to 
contain the answer in Dioff, 
ii. 37, and Swid, ao^6s belong 
of course to a much later 
period. Whereupon, says So- 
crates, he had thought over 
the sense of the oracle, and, in 
the hope of finding it, he had 
conversed with all who made 
pretensions to knowledge. At 
last he has found that neither 
he himself nor any other man 
was wise, but that others be- 
lieved themselves to be wise, 
whilst he was conscious of his 
want of wisdom. He con- 
sidered himself therefore 
pledged in the service of 
Apollo to a similar sifting of 
men, to save the honour of the 
oracle, which declared him, al- 
though one so wanting in wis- 
dom, to be the wisest of men. 
Allowing that Socrates really 
said this — and there is no 
doubt that he uttered it in 
substance — it by no means fol- 
lows that his philosophical 
activity dated from the time 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



dawned on him, cannot be determined. Most prob- 
ably it grew gradually in proportion as he gained 
more knowledge of the moral and intellectual circum- 
stances of his time, and soon after the beginning of 
the Peloponnesian war he had found in the main his 
philosophical centre of gravity.* 

From that time forward he devoted himself to 
the mission he had assumed, regardless of everything 
else. His means of support were extremely scanty,* 
and his domestic life, in company with Xanthippe, 
was far from happy .^ Yet neither her passionate 



of the Pythian oracle. Else 
what should have led Chaere- 
phon to put the question, or 
the oracle to give the answer 
it did ? So that if in the apo- 
logy he speaks as though the 
Delphic oracle had first aroused 
him to sift men, it must he a 
figure of speech. Without 
going so far as Colotes (in 
J^htt. adv. Col. 17, 1), and 
Athen^Bus (v. 218) and many 
modem writers (Bruoker, Hist. 
Phil. i. 534, Van Dalen and 
Heumann)f and denying the 
historical character of the 
oracle altogether — and certain- 
ly it cannot be very rigidly 
proved — ^we must at least at- 
tach no great importance to it. 
It may have done a similar 
service to Socrates as his doc- 
tor's degree did to Luther, as- 
suring him of his inward call, 
but it had just as little to do 
with making him a philosophi- 
cal reformer as the doctor's de- 
gree had with making Luther a 
religious reformer. The story 
of the response given to his 
father when he was a boy 

(Plut, Gen. Socr. c. 20) is al- 
together a fiction. 

* This is proved by the part 
which Aristophanes assigns to 
Socrates in the Clouds. If at 
that time, 424 B.C., he could be 
described as the chief of the 
new learning, he must have 
worked for years according to 
a definite method, and have 
gathered about him a circle of 
friends. In the Connus of 
Ameipsias, which seems to have 
been acted at the same time as 
the Clouds, he likewise appears 
as a well-known person, and lo 
in his travelling memorials had 
previously alluded to him. See 
p. 56, 1 ; 57, 3. 

* See p. 64, 1. 

* The name of Xanthippe is 
not only proverbial now. Later 
writers of antiquity (^Teles. in 
Stoh. Flor. 6, 64; Serieea De 
Const. 18, 5, Bpist. 104, 177 ; 
Porphyry (in Theod. Cur. Gr. 
Aft. xii. 66) ; Diogenes (ii. 36) ; 
Plutarch (Coh. Ira, 13, 461), 
who however tells the same of 
the wife of Pittacus, Tranq. An. 
ii. 471 ; ^lian (V. H. xi. 12) ; 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap, character would he allow 

^thenatts (v. 219); Synegius, 

&c.), tell so many little stories 
and disgraceful traits of her 
that one almost feels inclined 
to take np the cudgels in her 
behalf, as Heumann has actu- 
ally done (Acta Phil. i. 103). 
What Xenophon (Mem. ii. 2 ; 
Sym. 2, 10) and Plato (Phaedo, 
60, A.) say of her, shows that 
she cannot have been altogether 
badly disposed. At least she 
was solicitous about her family, 
though at the same time she 
was extremely violent, over- 
bearing, and hard to deal with. 
It is remarkable that Aristo- 
phanes in the Clouds says no- 
thing of the married life of 
Socrates, which might have af- 
forded him material for many a 
joke. Probably Socrates was not 
then married. His eldest son is 
called twentyrfive years later 
{Plato, Apol. 34, D. ; Phaedo, 60, 
A.) fx€ipdKiov ^5tj, and there are 
two young children. Besides 
Xanthippe, Socrates is said to 
have had another wife, Myrto, 
a daughter or grand-daughter 
of Aristides: after Xanthippe 
according to Aristotle (in IHog, 
ii. 26 ; conf . Stob, Floril 86, 26, 
Posidon in Ps. Plwt. De Nob. ' 
18, 3 ; less accurate is Plutarch's 
Aristid. 27 which Athen. xiii. 
655 follows) ; before her accord- 
ing to another view (also in 
Diog.) ; and at the same time 
with her according to Aris- 
toxenus, Demetrius Phaler., 
Hieronymus Bhod., Satyrus, 
and Porphyry, in Cyril, c. Jul., 
vi. 186, D. ; so that he had two 
wives at once. The fallacy of 
the last view has been already 
exposed by Panaetius (accord- 

to ruffle his philosophic 

ing to Plut.), and in modem 
times most thoroughly by Luzac 
(Lectiones Atticae, Leyden, 
1809). Not only is such a 
thing incompatible with the 
character of Socrates, but 
amongst his ootemporaries, 
foes and friends, Xenophon, 
Plato, Aristophanes, and other 
comic poets, including Timon, 
there is no allusion to a rela- 
tion, which would most un- 
doubtedly have, had it existed, 
caused a great sensation and 
have provoked attack and de- 
fence, and derision in the high- 
est degree. The laws of Athens 
never allowed bigamy, and the 
decree purporting to be in 
favour of it, by which Hie- 
ronymus attempts to give pro- 
bability to his story (the same 
to which reference is made by 
Gell N. A. XV. 20, 6, from the 
supposed bigamy of Euripides) 
either never was passed, or 
must bear a different meaning. 
The only question is, whether 
there can be any foundation 
for the story, and how its rise 
can be explained. Shall the 
Pseudo-Aristotle be believed, 
who says that Myrto was his 
second wife, and the two 
younger sons her children ? 
But this cannot be reconciled 
with^the Phaedo 60, A., let alone 
the fact that Myrto, as a 
daughter of Aristides, must have 
been older than Socrates (whose 
father in Laches, 180, D,is men- 
tioned as a school companion of 
her brother), and far too old then 
to bear children. Or shall it, on 
the contrary, be conceded (with 
Luzac) that Myrto was Socrates' 
first wife, and that he married 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



composure,* nor could domestic cares hinder the oc- 



Xanthippe after her death ? 
This, too, is highly improbable. 
For, in the first place, neither 
Xenophon nor Plato know any- 
thing about two wives of So- 
crates, although the Symposium 
would have invited some men- 
tion of them. In the second 
place, all the biographers (a 
few unknown ones in Diogenes 
excepted), and particularly the 
Pseudo-Aristotle, from whom 
all the rest appear to have taken 
the story, say that he married 
Myrto after Xanthippe, and 
that Sophroniscus and Menex- 
enus were her children. Thirdly, 
Socrates cannot possibly have 
married the sister or the niece 
of Lysimachus, the son of 
Aristides, before the battle of 
Delium, since at the time of 
the battle (Lach. 180, D.) he 
did not know Lysimachus per- 
sonally. Nor can his first mar- 
riage have been contracted 
after that date, since Xan- 
thippe's eldest son was grown 
up at the time of his death. 
Aiid lastly, in Plato's Theaetet. 
150, B., shortly before his 
death, Socrates mentions this 
Aristides, as one of those who 
had withdrawn from his intel- 
lectual influence without detri- 
ment to his relationship as a 

Thus the connection between 
Socrates and Myrto seems to 
belong altogether to the re- 
gion of fable. The most pro- 
bable account of the origin 
of the story is the following. 
We gather from the remains 
of the treatise irtpl firyeycias 
(8tob. Flor. 86, 24, 25; 88/ 

13), the genuineness of which 
was doubted by Plutarch, and 
certainly cannot be allowed, 
that this dialogue was con- 
cerned with the question, 
whether nobility belonged to 
those whose parents were vir- 
tuous. Now none were more 
celebrated for their spotless 
virtue and their voluntary 
poverty than Aristides and So- 
crates. Accordingly the writer 
brought the two into connec- 
tion. Socrates was made to 
marry a daughter of Aristides, 
and since Xanthippe was 
known to be his wife, Myrto 
was made to be his second 
wife and the mother of his 
younger children. Others, 
however, remembered that 
Xanthippe survived her hus- 
band. They thought it un- 
likely that Socrates should be 
the son-in-law of a man dead 
before he was bom, and they 
tried to surmount these diffi- 
culties in various ways. As 
regards the first difficulty, 
either it was maintained that 
Myrto was his second wife and 
that the younger children were 
hers, in which case it was 
necessary to place her side by 
side with Xaiithippe, as Hier- 
onymus actually did, and in- 
vented a decree of the people 
to make it probable; or to 
avoid romance, this supposition 
was given up, and Myrto was 
made to be his first wife, who 
then can have borne him no 
children, since Lamprocles, his 
eldest son, according to Xeno- 
phon, was a child of Xanthippe. 
The second difficulty could be 

For note * see next page. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





cupation which he recognised to be the business of 

his life. His own concerns were neglected lest he 

should omit anything in the service of God.* To be 

independent, he tried, like the Crods, to rise superior 

to wants ; * and by an uncommon degree of self-denial 

and abstemiousness,* he so far succeeded that he 

could boast of living more pleasantly and more free 

from troubles than any one else.^ It was thus possible 

for him to devote his whole powers to the service of 

others without asking or taking reward ; ® and this 

got over either by making 
Myrto a grand-daughter in- 
stead of a daughter of Aris- 
tides, the grandson of Aristi- 
des the Just. Plato, Lach. 179, 
A.; Theaet., &c. The former 
was the usual way. The latter 
is the view of Athenaeus. 

* See XenopTum 1. c, not to 
mention later anecdotes re- 
specting this subject. 

« Plato, Apol. 23, B. ; 31, B. 

« Conf. Xen, Mem. i. 6, 1-10, 
where he argues against Anti- 
phon, that his is a thoroughly 
happy mode of life, ending 
with the celebrated words : 

rh ih &s 4\axi<Trwv iyyvrdra rod 

* The contentment of So- 
crates, the simplicity of his 
life, his abstinence from sen- 
sual pleasures of every kind, 
his scanty clothing, his walk- 
ing bare-foot, his endurance of 
hunger and thirst, of heat and 
cold, of deprivations and hard- 
ships, are well known. Conf. 
Xen, Mem. i. 2, 1 ; 3, 5 ; Plato, 
Symp. 174, A., 219, B. ; Phaed- 
rus, 229, A. ; Arittoph. Clouds, 
103, 361, 409, 828, Birds 1282. 

» Xen, Mem. i. 6, 4 ; iv. 8, 6. 

« Xen. Mem. i. 2, 5 ; i. 5, 6 
i. 6, 3 ; Plato, Apol. 19, D. 31 
B. ; .S3, A.; Euthypro, 3, D. 
Symp. 219, E. In the face of 
these distinct testimonies, the 
statement of Aristoxenus {Diog. 
ii. 20) that from time to time 
he collected money from his 
pupils, can only be regarded as 
a slander. It is possible that 
he did not always refuse the 
presents of opulent friends — 
\Diog. ii. 74, 121, 34 ; Sen. de 
Benef. i. 8; vii. 24; QmnHl. 
Inst. xii. 7, 9). Questionable 
anecdotes (^JDiog. ii. 24, 31, 65 ; 
Stoh. Flor. 3, 61 ; 17, 17) would 
prove nothing, to the contrary, 
but no dependence can be 
placed on these authorities. 
He is said to have refused the 
splendid offers of the Mace- 
donian Archelaus and the Thes- 
salian Scopas {Diog. ii. 25 ; 
Sen. Benef. v. 6; Arricm or 
Plut. in Stoh. Floril. 97, 28; 
Dio Ch/rys. Or. xiii. 30), and 
this tale is confirmed as far as 
the first-named individual is 
concerned by Aristotle, Rhet. 
ii. 23, in a passage which Bayle, 
Diet. Archelaus Bem. D. dis- 
putes without reason. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


occupation so confined him to his native city that he . Chap. 
rarely psissed its boundaries or even its gates.^ • 

To take part in the affairs of the state ^ he did 
not, however, feel a call ; not only holding it to be 
impossible to act as a statesman ^ in the Athens of 
that day without violating his principles, and loath- 
ing submission to the demands of a pampered mob ;* 
but far more because he recognised his own peculiar 
task to lie in something very different. Any one 
sharing his conviction that care for one's own culture 
naust be preferred to all care for public affairs, and 
that a thorough knowledge of self, together with a 
deep and many-sided experience, is a necessary quali- 
fication for pubUc life,^ must regard the influencing 
of individuals as a far more important business than 
the influencing of the community, which without the 
other would be profitless ; ^ must consider it a better 
service to his country to educate able statesmen 
than actually to discharge a statesman's duties/ 
Any one so thoroughly fitted by nature, taste, tone 
of thought and character, to elevate the morality 
and develop the intellect in others by means of 
personal intercourse, could hardly feel at home in 

> In the Crito, 62, B. ; 63, A., * Plaio, Apol. 33, A., or as 

he says, that except on military the Grorgias (473, E.) ironically 

duty he has only once left expresses it : because he was- 

Athens, going as a deputy to the too plain for a statesman. 

Isthmian games. From the Conf. Gorg. 521, D. 

Phaedrus, 230, C, we gather » Plato, Apol. SQ, ^ymp. 216, 

that he rarely went outside the A. ; Xen, Mem. iv. 2, 6 ; iii. 6. 

Plato, Apol. 29, 0. ; 30, D. ; 

« Platoy Apol. 31, C. 33, C. Gorg. 613, E. 

» PlatOy Apol. 31, D. ; Rep. ? Xen, Mem. i. 6, 15. 
vi. 496, C; Gorg. 521, C. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




any other line of life.^ Accordingly, Socrates never 
attempted to move from his position as a private 
citizen. By serving in several campaigns with the 
greatest bravery and endurance,^ he discharged his 
duties to his country. As a citizen he met un- 

* Socrates asserts this in 
Plato quite explicitly. In Apol. 
31, D., he remarks that his 
Zouyu&vtov sent him back from a 
public life, and wisely too ; 
for in a career spent in oppos- 
ing the passionate impulses of 
the masses he would long since 
have been ruined. The 8ai/i<{- 
viov which deters him is the 
sense of what is suited to his 
individuality. That this sense 
conducted him rightly, is 
proved by the consideration 
that a public career, had he 
taken to it, would not only 
have been unsuccessful in his 
case, but would also have been 
most injurious for himself; 
and Socrates usually estimates 
the moral value of conduct by 
success. If this consideration, 
as it no doubt did, confirmed 
his dislike to a public career, 
still the primary cause of this 
dislike, the source of that in- 
superable feeling, which as a 
htuyi.6viov preceded every esti- 
mate of consequences, was with- 
out doubt something immedi- 
ate. Had a public position suit- 
ed his character as well as the 
life he chose, he would as little 
have been deterred by its dan- 
gers, as he was by the dan- 
gers of that which he adopted 
(Apol. 29, B.). He states, how- 
ever, that his occupation af- 
forded him great satisfaction 
with which he could not dis- 

pense, Apol. 38, A. tri koI 
Txrfx^vfi ndyitrrov iYatf^i' hv 
Mpt&rqt rovTO, iKdtrrris rtiiipas 
T€p\ &p€r^s robs XSyovs wouiirBtu 
KcCL rav J&XKmv^ irepi ^v ifUts 
i/jLOv &KQi$€rc iiaXeyofAdvov kcU 

Hh iLvt^iraffros $ios oh ^utrhs iv- 

' See the stories in Plato, 
Symp. 219, E. ; Apol. 28, E. ; 
Charm, i. ; Lach. 181, A. 
Of the three expeditions men- 
tioned in the Apology, that 
to Potidaea, 432 B.C., that to 
Delium, 424 B.C., and that to 
Amphipolis, 422 B.C., the two 
first are fully described. At 
Potidsea Socrates rescued Alci- 
biades, but gave up in his 
favour his claim to the prize 
for valour. His fearless retreat 
from the battle of Delium is 
mentioned with praise. An- 
tisthenes (in Athen. v. 216, b) 
refers the affair of the prize to 
the time after the battle of 
Delium. Probably Plato is 
right, being generally well-in- 
formed on these matters. The 
doubts which Athenaeus raises 
respecting Plato's account are 
trivial. Naturally, however, 
other accounts derived from 
his account cannot be quoted 
in support of it. The story 
that Socrates rescued Xeno- 
phon at Delium (Strabo, ix. 2, 
7; Diog.) seems to confound 
Xenophon with Alcibiades. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


righteous demands alike of an infuriated populace Chap. 

and of tyrannical oligarchs, in every case of danger,^ 
firmly and fearlessly ; but in the conduct of aflfairs 
he declined to take part. 

Nor would he appear as a public teacher after 
the manner of the Sophists. He not only took no 
pay, but he gave no methodical course,* not profess- 
ing to teach, but only to learn in common with 
others ; not to force his convictions upon them, but 
to examine theirs ; not to pass the truth that came 
to hand like a coin fresh from the mint, but to 
awaken a taste for truth and virtue, to show the way 
thereto, to overthrow spurious, and to discover real 
knowledge.* Never weary of converse, he eagerly 
seized every opportunity of giving an instructive 
and moral turn to conversation. Day by day he was 
about in the market ' and public promenades, in 
schools and workshops, ever ready to have a word 
with friend or stranger, with citizen or foreigner, 
but always prepared to give an intellectual or moral 
turn to the conversation.^ Whilst thus serving God 

' Xen, Mem. i. 1, 18, and 2, and of Fa.vorimis in Biog, ii. 

31 ; iv. 4, 2 ; Hellen. i. 7, 15 ; 20, that he gave instruction in 

Plato, Apol. 32, A. ; Gorg. 473, rhetoric, needs no further re- 

B. ; epist. Plat. vii. 324, D. ; see f utation. 

also iMzaCf De Socrate cive, ■ Proofs in all the dialogues. 

92-123 ; Orate' % Hist, of Greece, See particularly Plato^ Apol. 

viii. 238-285. 21, B. ; 23 B. ; 29, D. ; 30, E. ; 

« PlcutOy Apol. 33, A. : ^7fil> l\ Rep. i. 336, B. The Socratic 

Z^iaKoKot fihy Mevhs vdnror* method will be discussed here- 

iywSyLiiv €i be ris fipv \4yotnos after. 

xeiiThifjuanovTrpdrTOinos iviOvfifi * Xen. Mem. i. 1, 10; iii. 

&ffo^ctv . . . oh^evX irdyiror' i<p96' 10 ; Plato, Symp., Lysis., Char- 

trtiffo. Ibid. 19 D. Xen. Mem. mides, Phaedrus, Apol. 23, B. ; 

i. 2, 3 and 31. The assertion 30, A. The /iatrrpoircfa which 

of the Epicurean Idomeneus, Hocrates boasts of, Xen. Symp. 

F 2 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 


^nt ^ in his higher calling, he was persuaded that he waar 
- also serving his country in a way that no one else 
could do.^ For deeply as he deplored the decline of 
discipline and education in his native city ,2 on the 
moral teachers of his time, the Sophists,^ he could 
place no reliance. The attractiveness of his discourse 
won for him a circle of admirers, for the most part 
consisting of young men of family,* drawn to him by 
the most varied motives, standing to him in various 
relations, and coming to him, some for a longer, 
others for a shorter time.* For his part, he was 
anxious not only to educate these friends, but to 
advise them in everything pertaining to their good, 
even in worldly matters.® Out of this changing, and 
in part only loosely connected society, a nulceus was 
gradually formed of decided admirers, — a Socratic 
school, united, however, far less by a common set of 
doctrines, than by a common love for the person of 
its founder. With more intimate friends he fre- 
quently had common meals,^ which, however, can 
scarcely have been a fixed institution. Such as 
appeared to him to require other branches of in- 

3, 10 ; 4 ; 56, 8, 6, 42, is no- tioi. iiroKoKovdoCm^s oTs fid\iara 

thing else, this art consisting trxoKii iffriv, oi ruv irXovarwrd- 

in making friends lovable, by • rwv. Still we find among his 

virtue and prudence. ardent admirers, not only Antis- 

* Plat% Apol. 30, A. ; Conf. thenes, but also Apollodorus 
36, 0. ; 39, 3 ; 41, D. ; Grorg. and Aristodemus, who appear 
621, D. according to Plato, Symp. 173, 

* Xen. Mem. iii. 5, 13. 8, to have been equally poor. 

» Mem. iv. 4, 6, which is not * Conf. Xen. Mem. i. 2, 14 ; 

at variance with Plato, Apol. 19, iv. 2, 40 ; Plato, Theaet. 150, D, 

D, nor yet with the passages • Conf. examples, Mem. ii. 3> 

quoted p. 69, 1. 7, 8, 9 ; iii. 6, 7. 

* Plato, Apol. 23, C, oi v4oi » Xen, Mem. iii. 14. » 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


struction, or whom he believed unsuited for inter- Chap. 

course with himself, he urged to apply to other ' 

teachers, either in addition to or in place of himself.^ 
Until his seventieth year he followed this course of 
action with his powers of mind imimpaired.^ The 
blow which then put an end to his life and his 
activity will be mentioned hereafter. 

* Plato, Thesetet. 161, B. ; knew him), without showing 
Xen. Mem. iii. 1 ; Symp. 4, any trace of weakness in his 
61. mental powers up to the last 

* Xenophon and Plato most- moment. That it was a wrong 
ly represent Socrates as an old view is distinctly stated in 
man (such as he was when they Mem. iv. 8, 8. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 






A. The 

of the cha- 
racter of 

Ancient writers speak of the character of Socrates in 
terms of the greatest respect. There are, however^ 
some exceptions, quite apart from the prejudice 
occasioned by his condemnation, which no doubt 
survived some time after his death. Followers of 
Epicurus indulged their love of slander even at his 
expense,^ and one voice from the Peripatetic School 
has scandalous stories to tell respecting his life : as 
a boy he was disobedient and refractory ; as a youth, 
profligate ; as a man, coarse, importunate, given to 
sudden bursts of anger, and of fiery passions.^ But 

' Cleero de N. D. i. 34, says 
that his teacher, the Epicurean 
Zeno, called him an Attic buf- 
foon. Epicurus, however, ac- 
cording to Diog. X. 8, appears 
to have spared him, although 
he depreciated every other 

* The source from v^hich these 
unfavourable reports, collected 
by Luzae, come is Aristoxenus, 
Lect. Att. 246 (from whom we 
have already heard similar 
things, p. 58, note ; 61, 3 ; 64, 
5). From this writer come 
the following statements ; that 
mentioned in Porphyry : ws 
<p6ff€t yeySvoi rpax^s fls opyfiVy 

K(d 6ir($T€ Kpcn-riBelri r^ trdBti Bi^ 
ndtrris &<rxt7/iO(n(>^s ifidZi(ey — 
Synesiiis (Enc. Galv. 81) will 
have this limited to his younger 
years ; that of Cyril, c. Jul. vi, 
185, C; Theod. Cur. Gr. Aff. 
xii., 63, p. 174 : 2(t€ Si ^\^x^€i'n 
tnrh Tov irdBovs ro^ov Seii^K 
etvai rijv iurxvi^oaivriy' oit^eyhs 
yhp ofiri hvd/jLaros iirocrxeo'tfai 
oiire Tpdyfiarros ; and another of 
Cyril. 186, C. Theod, 1. c.) that 
Socrates was in other ways 
temperate, vphs 8i r^v rw 
i,<l>po9iirltov j^ffiy <r^9p6T€por 
yXv cTi^at, ktiKlwf Z\ /x^ rtpoir^lvtu^ 
^ yhip reus yafiercus ^ rats koivcus 
XpwOai fiSvais, and then after 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



the stories we have of this kind are so improbable, 
and the chief relator is so untrustworthy,^ that we 
cannot even with certainty^ infer that Socrates only 
became what he was after a severe struggle^ with his 


the history of his bigamy he 
condndes : cTvou h4 tfrriaiv cunhv 
iy reus &fAi\lous aiv&s re <l>i\' 
cae€X^I*JOi^ KcU \olBopov Kol ^fipia- 
tuc6p» From the same source, 
as may be gathered from Plut, 
Mai. Her. c. 9, p. 856, comes 
the charge which Theod. 1. c. 
1. 29, p. 8 quotes from Porphyry, 
without naming Aristoxenus, 
eJvtu tk ahrhv irphs ot^hy fihy 
&4>v^> ^vaiSevToy S^ irtpl irdyra, 
so that he was hardly able to 
read, besides what follows 
(Ibid. xii. 66, p. 174 ; conf. iv. 
2, p. 56) : i\fyiTO 8i irtpl avrov 
&s ipairous &y oIk €? fiuj^fity ov8^ 
eindtCTus' TcpSrroy yi^y ydp ^wriy 
aJnhy r^ irarpl 8iaT€\€a'at, &Trct- 
Oovyra ica2 ivdre K^K^^iretfy oArhy 
Kafi6yTa rk 6pyaya rh. irtpl tV 
rixvTiy iatavray ^ovS^irore oXi- 
yfep4i<ra»ra tov wpoffrdyfAoros 
ir^pirpixtiy oibrhy ivovJi^iitOTe 
96\€t€y , , , . %y h\ fcol rSiv 
iwirifutfUy»y fcal rdSt "XtcKpdru 
tri us Tohs 6x^^^^ ^iawSuro koX 
rhs BiaTpi$b,s ivouiro vphs reus 
Tp(»w4(ais Kal irphs rats 'Epficus, 
Herewith is connected the 
story of the physiognomist 
Zopyrus. {Oie. Tusc. vi. 37, 
83 ; De Fat. iv. 10 ; Alex. Aph. 
De Fato, vi., Pers. Sat. IV. 24 
Conf. ; Max. Tyr. xxxi. 3), who 
declared Socrates to be stupid 
and profligate, and received 
from him the answer, that by 
nature he had been so, but had 
been changed by reason. This 
account can hardly be true. It 
looks as if it had been devised 

to illustrate the power of rea- 
son over a defective natural 
disposition, as illustrated in 
Plato, Symp. 215, 221, B. If 
the story was current in the 
time of Aristoxenus, he may 
have used it for his picture; 
but it is also possible that his 
description produced the story, 
which in this case would have 
an apologetic meaning. The 
name of Zopyrus would lead us 
to think of the Syrian magi- 
cian, who, according to Aris- 
totle in Diog. 11. 45, had 
foretold the violent death of 

> As may be already seen 
from the stories respecting the 
bigamy, the gross ignorance, 
the violent temper, and the 
sensual indulgences of So- 

* As Herma/fin does, De Socr. 
Mag. 30. 

" Though this is in itself 
possible, we have no certain 
authority for such an assertion. 
The anecdote of Zopyrus is, 
as already remarked, very un- 
certain, and where is the war- 
rant that Aristoxenus followed 
a really credible tradition? 
He refers, it is true, to his 
father Spintharus, an actual 
acquaintance of Socrates. But 
the question arises whether 
this statement is more trust- 
worthy than the rest. The 
chronology is against it, and 
still more so is the sub- 
stance of what Spintharus 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





natural disposition. Our best authorities only know 
him as the perfect man, to whom they look up with 
respect, and whom they regard as the exemplar of 
humanity and morality. ' No one,' says Xenophon, 
' ever heard or saw anything wicked in Socrates ; . so 
pious was he that he never did anything without first 
consulting the Gods ; so just that he never injured 
any one in the least ; so master of himself that he 
never preferred pleasure to goodness ; so sensible that 
he never erred in his choice between what was better 
and what was worse. In a word, he was of men the 
best and happiest.' * 

He further represents Socrates as a pattern of 
hardiness, of self-denial, of self-mastery ; as a man 

says. It may also be asked 
whether Spintharus spoke the 
truth, when he professed to 
have witnessed outbursts of 
anger in Socrates, who must 
then have been in the last 
years of his life. Certainly 
we have no more reason to 
believe him than his son. 
Lastly, Aristoxenus does not 
confine his remarks to the 
youth of Socrates, but they 
are of a most general character, 
or refer distinctly to his later 
years. I/wzao, 1. c. 261, would 
appear to have hit the truth 
when he makes Aristoxenus 
responsible for all these state- 
ments. For Aristoxenus ap- 
pears not only to have carried 
his warfare with the Socratic 
Schools against the person of 
Socrates, but also to have in- 
dulged in the most capricious 
and unfounded misapprehen- 

sions and inferences. His 
overdrawn imagination makes 
Socrates as a boy dissatisfied 
with his father's business, and 
as a man pass his life in the 
streets. In the same way he 
finds that Socrates must have 
been a man without culture, 
because of expressions such as 
that in the Apology, 17, B., or 
that in the Symp. 221, E. ; 199, 
A. ; violent in temper, in sup- 
port of which he refers to 
Symp. 214, D. ; and dissolute 
because of his supposed bigamy, 
and the words in Xen. Mem. i. 
3, 14 ; ii. 2, 4, and p. 51, 2. 

> Mem. i. 1, 11; Iv. 8, 11. 
R. Lange'8 objections to the 
genuineness of the concluding 
chapters of the Memorabilia 
(iv. 8) (De Xenoph. Apol. Berl. 
1873) do not appear sufficiently 
strong to preclude their being 
cited as an authority. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


of piety and love for his country, of unbending Chap. 

fidelity to his convictions, as a sensible and trust- '_ 

worthy adviser both for the bodies and souls of his 
friends ; as an agreeable and affable companion, 
with a happy combination of cheerfulness and 
fieriousness ; above all, as an untiring educator of 
character, embracing every opportunity of bringing 
all with whom he came into contact to self-knowledg6 
and virtue, and especially opposing the conceit and 
thoughtlessness of youth. 

Plato says the same of him. He too calls his 
teacher the best, the most sensible, and the most 
just man of his age,* and never tires of praising his 
simplicity, his moderation, his control over the wants 
and desires of the senses ; imbued with the deepest 
religious feeling in all his doings, devoting his whole 
life to the service of the Grods, and dying a martyr's 
death because of his obedience to the divine voice ; 
and like Xenophon, he describes this service as the 
exercise of a universal moral influence on others, and 
particularly on youth. In his picture,. too, the more 
serious side in the character of Socrates is relieved 
by a real kindness, an Athenian polish, a sparkling 
cheerfulness and a pleasing humour. Of his social 
virtues and his political courage Plato speaks in the 
same terms as Xenophon, and adds thereto an ad- 
mirable description of Socrates on military service.^ 
Every trait which he mentions adds to the clearness 
of that picture of moral greatness, so wonderful for 

' -See the end of the Phaedo. ^ gg^ page 66, note 2. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




B. Hu 
Oreek pe- 

its very originality, for the absence of all that is 
studied and artificial about it, for its exclusion of 
self-glorification and affectation.^ 

Owing to its being a native growth, the Socratic 
type of virtue bears, throughout, the peculiar impress 
of the Greek mind. Socrates is not the insipid ideal 
of virtue, which a superficial rationalism would make 
of him, but he is a thorough Greek and Athenian, 
taken, as it were, from the very marrow of his nation, 
possessed of flesh and blood, and not merely the uni- 
versal moral standard for all time. His much-lauded 
moderation is free from the ascetic element, which it 
seems always to suggest in modem times. Socrates 
enjoys good company, although he avoids noisy 
carousals ; ^ and if he does not make the pleasures of 
the senses an object in life, no more does he avoid 
them, when they are offered to him, nay, not even 
when in excess. Thus the call for small cups in 
Xenophon's banquet is not made for fear of indulging 

' Most of the traits and 
anecdotes recorded by later 
writers are in harmony with 
this view of Socrates. Some 
of them are certainly fictions. 
Others may be taken from wri- 
tings of pupils of Socrates, 
which have been since lost, or 
from other trustworthy sources. 
They may be found in the fol- 
lowing places. Oio. Tusc. iii. 
15, 31; Off. i. 26 and 90; 
Setieca, De Const. 18, 5; De 
Ira, i. 15, 3 ; iii. 11, 2 ; ii. 7, 1 ; 
Tranqu. An. 5, 2 ; 17, 4 ; Epist. 
104, 27 ; Plin. H. Nat. vii. 18; 
JPlut, Educ. Pu. 14, p. 10; De 

Adulat. 32, p. 70 ; Coh. Ira, 4, 
p. 455 ; Tranqu. An. 10, p. 471 ; 
Garrulit. 20; Di^. ii. 21, 24, 
27,30; vi. 8; Gell 'S. AAi, I ; 
xix. 9, 9; Val, Max, viii. 8; 
JSlianyY, H. i. 16; ii. 11, 13, 
36 ; iii. 28 ; ix. 7, 29 ; xii. 15 ; 
xiii. 27, 32 ; Atken, iv. 157 c. ; 
Stob. Flor. 17, 17 and 22. 
Basil, De leg. Graec. libr. Op. 
II. 179, a. Thsinigt, Orat. vii. 
95, a. Simpl, in Bpict. Enchir. 
c, 20, p. 218. A few others 
have been or will be referred 

2 Plato, Symp. 220, A. ; conf . 
174, A. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


too largely, but that exhilaration may not be too Chap. 
rapid.* Plato describes him as boasting that he can * 

equally well take much or little, that he can surpass 
all in drinking, without ever being intoxicated him- 
self,^ and represents him at the close of the banquet 
as leaving all his companions under the table, and 
pursuing his daily work, after a night spent over the 
bowl, as if nothing had happened. Moderation here 
appears with him not to consist in total abstinence 
from pleasure, but in perfect mental freedom, neither 
requiring pleasure, nor being ever overtaken by its 
seductive influence. His abstemiousness in other 
points is also recorded with admiration.^ Numerous 
passages, however, in Xenophon's 'Memorabilia'* 
prove that his morality was far below our strict 
standard of principles. The Grecian peculiarity of 
aflFection for boys marks^ indeed, his relations to 
youth, but his character is above all suspicion of 
actual vice,® and he treats with irony a supposed 

» Xen, Mem. 2, 26: V 8i affection. Not only is there 

^/uy oi iratSes fUKpcus KvXi^i vvk- no aUusion to it in the judicial 

vh. ini}i/€Kd(69<Tiv, o6tws oh fiia- charge, but not even in Aris- 

C6fi€voi inrh rod oXvov fiedlftiv, tophanes, who would undoubt- 

dAX* iwaTr€id6ix€yoi irphs rh vaiyyi' edly have magnified the smal- 

wB4aT€pov &4>i|<(M€0a. lest suspicion into the gravest 

* Symp. 176, C. ; 220, A. ; charge. The other comic poets, 
213, E. according to Athen,, v. 219, 

' Xen, Mem. i. 2, 1 ; 3, 14. knew nothing of it. Nor does 

We have already seen that Xenophon deem it necessary 

Aristoxenus and his followers to refute this calumny, and 

cannot prove the contrary. therefore the well-known story 

* i. 3, 14 ; ii. 1, 5 ; 2, 4 ; iii. of Plato's banquet has for its 
11; iv. 5, 9. Conf. Conv. iv. object far more the glorifica- 
38. tion than the justification of 

* The cotemporaries of So- his teacher. On the other 
erates seem to have found no- hand, the relations of Socrates 
thing to object to in Socratic to Alcibiades, in the verses 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap. love-aflFair of his own.* At the same time, what 


Greek in the presence of youthful beauty was proof 
against a certain element of aesthetic pleasure, which 
at least was the groimd and origin, even though (as in 
his case) an innocent one, of deeper aifection ? ^ The 
odious excresceDces of Greek morality called forth 
his severest censure ; yet at the same time, accord- 
ing to Xenophon,^ and -^schines,* and Plato,* So- 
crates described his own relations to his younger 
friends by the name of Eros, or a passionate attach- 
ment grounded on aesthetic attractions. Not other- 
wise may Grecian peculiarities be noticed in his 
ethical or political views, nor is his theology free 
from the trammels of the popular belief. How deeply 
these lines had influenced his character may be seen 
not only in his simple obedience ^ to the laws of his 
country throughout life, and his genuine respect for 
the state religion,^ but far more also in the trials of 

purporting to be written by * In his Alcibiades he speaks 
Aspasia, which Atlieruevs com- of the love of Socrates for 
municates on che authority of Alcibiades. See A^Agtid. Or. 
Herodicus, Lave a very sus- xlv. irtpl ^opiKris, p. 30, 34. 
picious look, and Tertullian * Prot. beginning; Symp. 
Apol. c. 46 mistakenly applies 177, D. ; 218, B. ; 222, A. ; not 
the words Znx^Qfipuv rous u4ovs to mention other expressions 
to paederastia. In Jiwefuil for which Plato is answerable. 
(Sat. ii. 10) Socratici ciiuBdi • Plato, Apol. 28, K 
refer to the manners of his "^^^ Xenophan, Mem. i. 1, 2, as- 
own time. sures us not only that Socrates 

* Xen, Mem. iv. 1, 2 ; Symp. took part in the public sacri- 

4, 27; Plato, S}Tnp. 213, C. ; fices, but that he was frequently 

216, D. ; 222, B. ; Charm. 156, in the habit of sacrificing at 

D. home. In Plato he invokes 

' Xen. Mem. i. 2, 29 ; 3, 8 ; Helios, Symp. 220, D. ; and his 

Sym. 8, 19, 32, with which last words, according to the 

Plato agrees. Phaedo, 118, A., were an earnest 

' Symp. 8, 2 and 24 ; Mem. commission to Crito to offer a 

iv. 1, 2. cock to ^sculapius. Often is 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




his last days, when for fear of violating the laws, 
he scorned the ordinary practices of defence, and 
after his condemnation refused to escape from 
prison** The epitaph which Simonides inscribed on 
the tomb of Leonidas might very well be inscribed 
on that of Socrates : He died to obey the state.^ 

Deeply as Socrates is rooted in the national C. Pro- 
character of Greece, there is about him a some- trmuin 
thing decidedly unlike a Greek, presenting a foreign ^** ^^" 
and even almost modem appearance. This it was 
which made him appear to his cotemporaries a 
thoroughly eccentric and singular person. This, 
for a Greek so unintelligible, something, which 
he described by one word as his singularity,^ con- 
sisted, according to Plato's account,* in a want of 
agreement between his outward appearance and his 

belief in oracles mentioned, 
which he always conscien- 
tiously obeyed (Mem. i. 3, 4 ; 
Plato, Apol. 21, B.) and the 
use of which he recommended 
to his friends {Xen, Mem. ii. 
6, 8 ; iv. 7, 10 ; Anabas. iii. 1, 
6). He was himself fully per- 
suaded that he possessed an 
oracle in the truest sense, in 
the inward voice of his Sat/x^- 
viov, and he also believed in 
dreams and similar prognosti-" 
cations. {Plato, Crito, 44, A. ; 
Phaedo, 60, D. ; Apol. 33, C.) 

* This motive is represented 
by Xeiwphon (Mem. iv. 4, 4) 
and Plato (Apol. 34, D. ; Phaedo, 
98, C.) as the decisive one, 
although the Crito makes it 
appear that a flight from 
Athens would have done no 

good to himself, and much 
harm to his friends and de- 
pendants. The Apology speaks 
as if entreating the judges 
were unworthy of the speaker 
and his country. 

"^ Xen, says : irpoeiKero fiaWov 
Tois v6fiot5 ififkivtov hnroBavcXv ^ 
•jrc^KLvofi&y (gv. 

" Plato, Symp. 221, 0. : tloK- 
\h fihy ohtf &y Tis koL BXha Uxo^ 
"SwKpdtTj 4iraiv4(rai Ka\ Bavyjkvia 
. . . . rb 8^ /At}$6y2 cLvBp^irwv 
Hfxoiop tlvcu, fi'iirt rStv vaKtuStv 
ju^T6 rS>v vvv tmoiv, rovro A^iov 
Tcam-hs 6aifx»ros .... oTos 8^ 
ovToal y4yovf r^v droirdu' ivOptO' 
•Kos Koi ahrhs ol \Syoi avrov ohB* 
iyybs hv cSpot ris (nrQy, olhe r&v 
vvv otrre rwv va\aiwv. 

* Symp. 215, A. ; 221, E* 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, inward and real nature^ In this respect he contrasts 

!_ most strikingly with the mutual interpenetration of 

both, which constitutes the usual classic ideal. On 
the one hand we behold in Socrates indiflference to 
the outer world, originally foreign to the habits of 
his countrymen ; on the other hand, a meditative- 
ness unknown before. Owing to the former feature 
there is about him a something prosy and dry, and, 
if the expression may be allowed, philistine-like, 
sharply contrasting with the contained beauty and 
the artistic grace of life in Greece. Owing to the 
latter there is about him something akin to the 
revelation of a higher life, having its seat within, 
in the recesses of the soul, and not fully explained in 
its manifestations, and which even Socrates him- 
self regarded as superhuman. In their account of 
these two peculiarities both Plato and Xenophon 
are agreed. Even from an outward point of view, 
the Silenus-like appearance of Socrates, which Plato's 
Alcibiades,* and Xenophon's Socrates himself^ de- 
scribe with so much humour, must rather have con- 
cealed than exposed the presence of genius to the 
eye of a Greek. But more than this, a certain 
amount of intellectual stiflfness, and an indiflference 
to what is sensibly beautiful, is unmistakeable in his 
speech and behaviour. Take for instance the process 
of catechising given in the ' Memorabilia,' ^ by which 
a general of cavalry is brought to a knowledge of his 

> Symp. 215 ; conf. Thaeet. crates a pleasing appearance, 

14, 3, E. but this is of course quite unte- 

« Symp. 4, 19 ; 2, 19 ; Epi^te- nable. 

tut (Diss. iv. 11, 19) gives So- • iii. 8. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


duties, or the formality with which things,* long Chap. 

familiar to his hearers, are proved, or the way in 
which the idea of the beautiful is resolved into that 
of the useful.* Or hear him, on grounds of expedi- 
ency, advising conduct, which to us seems simply 
abominable,^ or .in the Phsedrus * refusing to walk 
out because hef can learn nothing from trees and the 
country, and taking exception in the Apology* to the 
works of poets and ai-tists, because they are the re- 
sults of natural genius and inspiration, and not of 
reflection.® Or see him in Xenophon's Symposium,^ 
despite the universal custom of the ancients,® dancing 
alone at home, in order to gain healthful exercise, 
and justifying his conduct by the strangest of reflec- 
tions ; unable even at table ' to forget considerations 
of utility. Taking these and similar traits into 
account, there appears in him a certain want of 
imagination, a one-sided prominence of the criti- 
cal and intellectual faculties, in short a prosiness 
which clashes with the poetry of Grecian life, and the 

' Symp. iii. 10, 9; iii. 11. M. Crasso, in foro, mihi crede, 

• iii. 8, 4. saltaret ; Plut, De vit. jud. 16, 

• i. 3, 14. 533, also the expressions in 

• 230, D. Xenoplwn : ^Opx'h(r'oiiai v^ Ala, 

• This point will be subse- 'Evravda Bh iytXeurw Sttokt**. 
quently discussed. And when Charmides found 

• 22, C. Socrates dancing: rh fniy yt 
' 2, 17. wp&Tov i^eirKdyfiv K<d ^Scitro, fiii 
® Compare Menexenus, 236, tudvoio, k. t. k Of the same 

C. : kKXh fi4vroi aoi ye 8et x^^" character was his instruction 

(eirOai, &<n€ nhv oXiyov c7 jue in music under Connus, if the 

K€\€iois ^woHvra hpxh<raa9iUj story were only true of his 

xapurcdfiriv &v ; and OCeero pro having received lessons with 

Mur. 6: Nemo fere saltat so- the schoolboys. Plato, Eu- 

brius, nisi forte insanit ; De thyd. 272, C. 

Offic iii. 19 : Dares banc vim • Xen. S>Tnp. 3, 2. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap, refined taste of an Athenian. Even Plato's Alcibiades' 

__*_ _ allows, that at first sight the discourses of Socrates 

appear ridiculous and rude, dealing as they invari* 
ably do with beasts of burden, smiths, tailors, and 
tanners, and apparently sapng the same thing in the 
same words. Was not this the very objection raised 
by Xenophon ? ^ How strange that plain unadorned 
conmion sense must have appeared to his cotem- 
poraries carefully avoiding all choice figures, and 
using the simplest and most common expressions. 

This peculiarity was not, however, the result of 
any lack of taste, but of the profound originality of 
his ideas, for which customary figures were insuffi- 
cient. Yet again, sometimes the soul of the philo- 
sopher, diving into its own recesses, so far lost 
itself in this labour as to be insensible to external 
impressions, and at other times gave utterance to 
enigmatical sayings, which appeared strange to it in 
a wakeful state. Serious and fond of meditation ^ 
as was Socrates, it not unfrequently happened that 

> Symp. 221, E. Conf. Kal- <r^, li^iy, & Xt&Kpar€Sy ixeipa rk 

licles in Gorgias 490, C. : irepl alr^L \4yeis h iy^ irdXai icori 

cirla K4y€is Koi iror^ koX torpors ffov ^Kowra. The like complaint 

KoX ^Xvapias .... i,rexvvs ye and the like answer is met 

&c2 (TKurias tc ical yvapeas koI fxa- with in Plato's Gorgias, 490, 

ytlpovs \6ytov koI tarpovs ob^ep E. Conf. 497, C. ; (Tfuxf^ Kolt 

itavu, &5 ircpt ro{fTwy iifuv hvra crrwh ipwr'/ifMra. 
rhv \6yov, * Accordingly in the Aristo* 

2 Mem. i. 2, 37 : *0 8i KpMas' telian problems, xxx. 1, 953, a, 

^^AA^ ruv $^ roi cr^ i,ir4xf(r6cu, 26, he is reckoned amongst the 

Hifnj, BefiiTfif & 'S^Kparts, ruy melancholy, which is not at 

CKVT^wv Ktd r&p r€Kr6vMv Ktd variance with the gentle firm- 

ruv ya?iK4wVj kcU 7^ olficu ab- ness (rh <Trdffii»ov) which Arii' 

rohs ¥fi^ KarartrpupOou diaBpv- tatle (Bhet. ii. 15) assigns to 

\ovfi4yovs bnh trod. Again in iv. him. 
4, 6 : Koi 6 /i^v 'linrlas' in ybip 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



deep in thought he remained, for a longer or shorter Chap, 
time,indifiFerent to the outer world,^ and stood there 
as one absent in mind. According to Plato, he once 
r^nalned in this state, standing on the same spot, 
from one day to the next.^ So energetically did he 
struggle with himself to attain an insight into his 
every motive. In doing this, he discovered a resi- 
duum of feelings and impulses, which he watched 
with conscientious attention without being able to 
explain them from what he knew of his own inner, 
life. Hence arose his belief in those divine revela- 
tions, which he thought to enjoy. And not only 
was he generally convinced that he stood and acted 
in the service of Grod, but he also held that super- 
natural suggestions were communicated to him, not 
only through the medium of public oracles,^ but also 
in dreams,^ and more particularly by a peculiar kind 
of higher inspiration, which goes by the name of the 
Socratic haifioviov.^ 

> Plato, Symp. 174, D. VoU stare solitus, etc. Philop, De 

qyartUen, D. DaBmon. d. Socr. an. R. 12, places the occa- 

25, 63 and AlherH, Socr. 148 sion during the battle of 

liave entirely mistaken the Delium. 

meaning of the text in suppo- • Conf . p. 76, 7, and 89. 

sing that if attributes to So- * Conf. p. 60, 2. In the 

crates any ecstatic states. passage here quoted Socrates 

» Symp. 220, C. The circum- refers to dreams in which the 

stances may indeed be regarded deity had commanded him to 

as a fact ; still we do not know devote himself to his philoso- 

f rom what source Plato derived phical activity. In the Crito 

liisknowledge of it, nor whether 44, A., a dream tells him that 

the authority which he follow- his death will follow on the 

ed had not exaggerated the third day. 

time during whidi Socrates » Volqua/rdsen, Das Dsemo- 

stood there. Favorinus in nium d. Socr. und seine Inter- 

OeU, N. A. ii. 1, makes the one preten. Kiel, 1862. Ribbing j 

occa«iion into many, and says Ueber Socrates* Daimonion 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




(a) The 
not a per- 

Even among the ancients many regarded these 
suggestions as derived from intercourse with a special 
and personally-existing genius,^ of which Socrates 
boasted ; in modem times this view was for a long 
time the dominant one.^ It was no doubt somewhat 

(Socratische Studien II., Up- 
sala Universitets A^rskrift, 

> The bill of accusation 
against Socrates seems to have 
understood the Batfx6vioy in this 
sense, since it charges him 
with introducing Ircpa Kcupit 
9aifi6yia in the place of the 
Gods of the state; nor does 
Ribbing's (Socrat. Stud. II. 1) 
remark make against this, that 
Meletus (in Plato Apol. 26, B.) 
thus explained his language ; So- 
crates not only denies the Gods 
of Athens but all and every 
God; the heavenly beings, 
whose introduction he attri- 
butes to him not being regarded 
as Gods, just as at a later time 
Christians were called &6co< 
though worshipping God and 
Christ. Afterwards this view 
appears to have been dropped, 
thanks to the descriptions of 
Xenophon and Plato, and does 
not recur for some time, even 
in spurious works attribute to 
these writers. Even Cicero, 
Divin. i. 54, 122, does not 
translate Baifi6vtoy by genius, 
but by *divinum qnoddam,* 
and doubtless Antipater, whose 
work he was quoting, took it 
in the same sense. Bat in 
Christian times the belief in a 
genius became nniversal, be- 
cause it fell in with the current 
belief in daemons. For in- 
stance, Pha, De Genio 8o- 

cratis, c. 20 ; Max. Tyr. xiv. 3 ; 
Ap7ileivSf De Deo Socratis, the 
Keoplatonists, andthe Fathers, 
who, however, are not agreed 
whether his genius was a good 
one or a bad one. Plutarch, 
and after him Apuleius, men- 
tion the view that by the 8oi- 
fiSviov must be understood a 
power of vague apprehension, 
by means of which he could 
guess the future from prognos- 
tications or natural signs. 

' Compare Tiedemanviy Geist 
der spekulat. Philosophic, ii. 
16 ; Meiners, Ueber den Genius 
des Sokr. (Verm. Schriften, 
iii. 1); Gesch. d. Wissensch. 
II. - 399, 538, Buhle, Gesch. d. 
Phil. 371, 388 ; Xrug, Gesch. d. 
alten Phil. p. 168, La^aulx, too 
(Socrates, Leben, 1858, p. 20) 
in his uncritical and unsatis- 
factory treatise respecting the 
9aifi6viov, believes it t/O be a real 
revelation of the deity, or even 
a real genius, and even Vol- 
qua/rdten gathers as the con- 
clusion of his careful, and in 
many respects meritorious, dis- 
quisition, that a real divine 
voice warned Socrates. The 
older literature in OlearitUy 148, 
186, RruekeTf 1. 543, which in- 
cludes many supporters of the 
opinion that the genius of 
Socrates was only his own rea- 
son. Further particulars in 
Xruff, 1. c. and Lelut, Dtoon de 
Socrates, 163. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



humiliating in the eyes of rationalising admirers, 
that a naan otherwise so sensible as Socrates should 
have allowed himself to be ensnared by such a super- 
stitious delusion. Hence attempts were not wanting 
to excuse him, either on the ground of the universal 
superstition of his age and nation, or else of his 
having a physical tendency to fanaticism.* Some 
even went so far as to assert that the so-called 
supernatural revelations were a shrewd invention,^ 
or a result of his celebrated irony.* Such a view, 


^ The first -named excuse is 
universal. Marsilius Ficinus 
(Theol. Platon. xiii. 2, p. 287) 
had assumed in Socrates, as 
well as in other philosophers, a 
peculiar bodily disposition for 
ecstasy, referring their suscep- 
tibility for supernatural reve- 
lations to their melancholy 
temperament. The personality 
of the daemon is not however 
called in question by him or by 
his supporters {OleaHm, 147). 
Modem writers took refuge in 
the same hypothesis in order 
to explain in Socrates the pos- 
sibility of a superstitious belief 
in a 9aifi6yiov. For instance, 
Tiedemann, *The degree of ex- 
ertion, which the analysis of ab- 
stract conception requires, has, 
in some bodies, the effect of 
mechanically predisposing to 
ecstasy and enthusiasm.' * So- 
crates was so cultivated that 
deep thought produced in him 
a dulness of sense, and came 
near to the sweet dreams of 
the iKtrrariKoU * Those inclined 
to ecstasy mistake suddenly 
rising thoughts for inspira- 
tions.' * The extraordinary 

condition of the brain during 
rapture affects the nerves of 
the abdomen and irritates 
them. To exercise the intellect 
immediately after a meal or to 
indulge in deep thought pro- 
duces peculiar sensations in 
the hypochondriacal.* In the 
same strain is MeinerSf Verm. 
Schr. iii. 48, Gesch. d. Wis- 
sensch. ii. 638. Conf. Schwa/ne, 
Historische Untersuchung : war 
Socrates ein Hypochondrist ? 
quoted by Krng, Gesch. d. alten 
Phil. 2 A. p. 163. 

* Plessinff, Osiris and So- 
crates, 185, who supposes that 
Socrates had bribed the Del- 
phic oracle in order to produce 
a political revolution, and 
vaunted his intercourse with a 
higher spirit. Chauvin in 

• FragvAer, Sur I'ironie de 
Socra+e in the M6moires de 
I'Acad^mie des Inscriptions, iv. 
368, expresses the view that So- 
crates understood by the 5oi- 
li6viov his own natural intelli- 
gence and power of combi- 
nation, which rendered it pos- 
sible for him to make right 

G 2 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




however, is hard to reconcile with the tone in which, 
on the testimony of both Plato and Xenophon, So- 
crates speaks of the suggestions of the Saifioviov, 
or with the value which he attaches to these sugges- 
tions on the most important occasions.^ To explain 
the phenomenon by the irritability of. a sickly body 
falls not far short of deriving it from the fancy of a 
monomaniac, and reduces the great reformer of 
philosophy to the level of a madman.* All these 
explanations, however, can now be dispensed with, 
Schleiermacher having shown,* with the general ap- 

ga/rded hy 

'Soeratesas probation of the most competent judges,^ that by 

mi inward 

itrarl^f. guesses respecting the future ; 

somewhat ironically he had 
represented this as a matter 
of pure instinct, of 6«toy or 
9c(a /ioipo, and employed for 
this purpose 9aifi&vto9 and simi- 
lar expressions. He remarks, 
however, that Socrates had no 
thought of a genius famili- 
aris, Sai/i^riofT here being used 
as an adjective and not as a 
substantive. Similarly BoUin 
in his Histoire ancienne, ix. 4, 
2 ; and BartkSlemy, Voyage du 
jeune Anacharsis, treats the 
expressions used respecting the 
9aifuiyio9 in Plato's Apology as 
plauanterie, and considers it 
an open question whether So- 
crates really believed in his 
genius. On others sharing the 
view, see TMut, 1. c. p. 163. 

» Xen, Mem. iv. 8, 4. Plato, 
Apol 31, C. ; 40, A. ; 41, D. 

• Many have spoken of the 
superstition and fanaticism of 
Socrates in a more.modest way, 
but comparatively recently 
Xelut (Du D4mon de Socrate, 

1836) has boldly asserted, 'que 
Socrate 6tait un fou ' — a cate- 
gory, in which he /places 
amongst others not omy Car- 
dan and Swejdenborg, but 
Luther, Ptocal, Rousseau and 
others. His chief argument is 
that Socrates not only be- 
lieved in a real and personal 
genius, but in his hsillucina- 
tions believed that he audi- 
bly heard its voice. Those 
who rightly understand Plato, 
and can distinguish what is 
genuine from what is false, 
will not need a refutation of 
these untruths. 

• Platan's Werke, i. 2, 432. 

* Bra/ndiSy Gesch. d. Gri. 
Bom. Phil. ii. a. 60. Bitter, 
Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 40. Her- 
mann, Gesch. u. Syst. d. Plato 
i. 236. Sooker, tfter Platon's 
Schriften p. 99. OtmHn in the 
notes to his translation of 
Plato's Apology p. 336. Kruehe, 
Forschungen, 227. Mbhing, 
16. Conf. B^egel, Gesch. d. 
Phil. ii. 77. Ait too (Platon's 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



the Saifwviov in the sense of Socrates, no genius, no 
separate and distinct person, can be understood, but 
only indefinitely some heavenly voice or divine 
revelation. No passage in Plato or Xenophon speaks 
of Socrates holding intercourse with a genius.* We 
only hear of a divine or heavenly sign,^ of a voice 
heard by Socrates,^ of some supernatural guidance 
by which many warnings were vouchsafed to him.^ 
All that these expressions imply is, that Socrates was 
conscious within of divine revelations, but how 
produced and whence coming they say absolutely 
nothing,^ nay their very indefiniteness proves clearly 
enough, that neither Socrates nor his pupils had any 


Leben and Schriften, p. 482), 
who takes ^aifiSviov for a sub- 
stantive meaning the deity, 
does not see therein a genius 
but only a 0tioy. 

• The passage Mem. i. 4. 14 ; 
^ay ol 0(ol trefivwriVf &airtp aoX 

proves nothing, as avfifio^Kovs 
is used as a metonym for aufi' 

-^ Plato, Phsedr. 242, B. : r6 

§101 yiyv€<rdai 4y4y€rOy Kal ma 
^v^w iBo^a abr6o€ ii,Kovffai, Bep. 
iv. 496, C. : rh Baifx6vtuv arifiuov, 
Euthy. 272, E. : iycvero rh «la- 
Shs cniittov, ih HcufiSpiop. Apol. 
60 ; rh tow dcoO ayifUiov — rh 
eiuOhs a"nniu)if. Ibid. 41, D. c. 
rh arifi€iov, 

» Plato, Apol. 31, D. : 4fjio\ 8^ 
^ovr' i<rr\v ix voiSSs ^p^dfjL€yoy, 
■^trfi Tif yiryvoiJiivri. Xen. Apol. 
12 : e^v ipwpii, 

* Plato, 1. c. : 8ri fioi OtUv ri 
iral daifiSyioy ylyverai. Also 40, 
A. : V €h»0vU fjLOi fxavrudi ^ rod 

iatfiovluv. Theset. 151, A.: rh 
yiyv6iJL€v6y fioi iaifidviov, — £u- 
thyphro 3, B. : on dii ah rh 8o«- 
ixdviov ^s aavr^ iKdurrore yiy- 
veffOcu. — Xen. Mem. i. 1, 4; rh 
Bmfi6vioy 1^ arifuuvtiv, iv. 8, 5. : 
ilvctyru&Ori rh Ztufju&viov. Symp. 
8, 5. Even the spurious writ- 
ings, Xenophon's Apology and 
Plato's Alcibiades do not go 
further; and the Theages. 
128, D., with all its romance 
respecting the prophecies of 
the 9atfi6pioy, expresses itself 
throughout indefinitely, nor 
need the 4>«i^ rod Baufioviov p. 
128, E. be taken for a person. 
The spuriousness of the Theages. 
notwithstanding Socher's de- 
fence needs no further proof, 
especially after being exhaus- 
tively shown by Hermann, p. 

* Doubtless Socrates regarded 
(rod or the deity as its ultimate 
source. But he .expresses nc 
opinion as to whether it came 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




very clear notion on the subject.^ These revelations, 
_ moreover, always refer to particular actions,^ and 

* It is much the same thing 
whether rh Zaifu6vtov be taken 
for a substantive or an adjec- 
tive. The probable rights of 
the case are, as Xrische, Forsch. 
229 remarks, that Xenophon 
uses it as a substantive = t^ 
$uoy or 6 Sthsj whereas Plato 
uses it as an adjective, ex- 
plaining it as ScdfjLoyioy <rrifiuoVf 
and says Zaifju6vi6v fxoi yiyv^rtu. 
The grammar will admit of 
either. Conf . Arigt. Rhet. ii. 23, 
1398 a, 16. When, therefore, 
Agt cites Xenophon against 
Plato's explanation of 5ai/u<Jwo 
as BcufUvta TTpdryfiara, he probably 
commits a fierdfiaa-is ds &Wo 
yivos. The very difference be- 
tween Xenophon and Plato 
proves how loosely Socrates 
spoke of the Zaiy^viov. 

* This applies to all the in- 
stances of its intervention 
mentioned by Plato and Xeno- 
phon. They are the following : 

(1) Xen. Mem. iv. 8, 6, where 
Socrates, when urged to pre- 
pare a defence, replies : hXKh 
v^ rhv AU, ffim fjLov ivixtipovvros, 
4>poyri<rai rris irphs rohs Sucaaria 
iaroXoylai iivoufrii&Ori rh Bcufidytoy, 

(2) Plato Apol. 31, D.: Why 
did not Socrates busy himself 
with political matters ? The 
Bm/a6viov was the reason : tout' 
fffriv H fioi ivayriovrai rh iroXt- 
TiicA 'irpdrr€w. (3) IHd. (after 
his condemnation) : a singular 
occurrence took place, v -yAp 
eiw6vt(£ fjMi fiavruc^ ri rov taiixovlov 
iv fxkv r^ 'irp6<r9€v XP^^'V 'omrl 
Trdw irvKvi) &c2 ^p koI vdyv ^i 
CfiiKpois ivaifriovfi4vri, ef ri /ieX- 
Xoifii fi^ 6pB&s TTpd^uv wvl 8^, . . . 

oihe i^i6yTi licoBw olKoOtv ^yavri- 
^0ri rh rov deov fffifiuoVf ofke 
Tivixa Mficuyov ivravBoi iirl rh 
SiKoa^ptoVf otfr' iv rtf \Aytf 
o^So^oD fuihXfvri ri ipeiv * Kodrot 
iv AWois \6yoiv voWaxov 8^ fie 
iiriffx^ XryoKTa /acto^i^. (4) 
Plato, Theaet. 151, A. : if such 
as have withdrawn from my 
society, again return, ivlois. 
fihv rh yiyv6fAMy6v fioi Bcufi6viov 
&iroK»X<;et ^vvfTvou, ivlois Sh i^. 
Add to these cases a few others 
in which Socrates himself more 
or less jokes about the 9euix6vtov, 
which deserve to be mentioned 
because it there appears in the 
same character as elsewhere. 

(6) Xen. Symp. 8, 6, where 
Antisthenes throws in Socrates' 
teeth : tot^ fitv rh ZtuyAviov 
'irpo<f>aai(6fi€yos obBiaKiyp fioi Tore 
B'&\Kov rov i^UfJL€vos. (6) Plato 
Phaedr. 242, B., when Socrates 
wished to depart : rh 9atfi6vt6v 
Tc Kol uuBhs ffnfi.€t6v yuoi yiyv«a0ou 
iyivtro &el 8^ fit iiriax^^ ^ ^ 
fiiXMt irpdrrtiv Kcd rtpa ^viiv 
iBo^a ahr6B^v hcowraiy f| /ic ohK 
i^ iirUvcu iFp\v ttv iu^oaitbtnaiuu, 
&s ri iifiaprriK6ra e*s rh OtTov. 

(7) Ibid. Euthyd. 272, E. ; as 
Socrates was about to leave 
the Lyceum, .iyivtro rh dvdhs 
a"rifie7ov rh Bcufi6viov, he therefore 
sat down again, and soon after 
Euthydemus and Dionysodorus 
really came in. In all these 
cases the huti6viov appears to 
have been an inward voice de- 
terring the philosopher from a 
particular action. Even the 
more general statement that 
the Zaxyj&viov always made its 
warnings heard whenever So- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



according to Plato assume the form of prohibitions. 
Sometimes the Saifwviov stops him from saying: or 
doing something.^ It only indirectly points out 
what should be done, by approving what it does not 
forbid. In a similar way it indirectly enables 
Socrates to advise his friends by not hindering 
him from approving their schemes, either by word 
or by silence.^ The subjects respecting which the 


crates thonght of a political 
career, falls in with this con- 
ception of it. In a similar 
sense the passage in the Be- 
public vi.. 496, D. should be 
understood, when Socrates re- 
marks that most of those who 
had the capacity for philosophy- 
were diverted therefrom by 
other interests, imless peculiar 
circumstances kept them, such 
as sickness, whicli was a hin- 
drance to political life. rh 
8* 1lfi4r§pov oIk h^iov \4yetv rh 
Scufi6vioy imfJi-€iop * fj ykp iroit rivi 
&A.A^ ij ovhevX r&y ^inrpoaBw 
y4yoy€. The heavenly sign 
keeps Socrates true to his 
philosophical calling, by op- 
posing him whenever he con- 
templates taking up anything 
else, as for instance, politics. 
Consequently, not even this 
passage compels us to give 
another meaning to its utter- 
smces than they bear according 
to Plato's express words, as 
conveying a judgment respect- 
ing the admissibility of a 
definite action, either contem- 
plated or commenced by So- 
crates. Even at the commence- 
ment of the spurious *Alci- 
biades,' this is all that is dis- 
cussed, and in the Theages. 128, 
D., the prophecies of the 9aifi6- 

yioy only have reference to par- 
ticular future actions (not only 
of Socrates, but of others), from 
which it dissuades. The two 
latter authorities are, however, 

1 Apol. 31, D. ; Zri noi BtUv 
ri Kal haufUviov ytyvcrai .... 
ifiol B^ roth' i<rrly iK iraiths do^dE- 
fitvoy <f>ayfi ris yiyvofUvq^ % tray 
yivrtrai kti inrorp^icti fA€ to<5tow 
t &y /u^XXw vpdrruy, icporphrti 
a^oi?iroT«. Phaedr. 242, C. 

* From the Platonic state- 
ments respecting the Bauyu&yioy 
which have just been given, 
Xenophon's statements differ, 
making it not only restraining 
but prey^ting, and not only 
having reference to the actions 
of Socrates but to those of other 
people. Mem. i. 1, 4 (Apol. 12) : 
rh yhp SaifiSvLoy i^ ffrificdytiy, 
Koi iroAAois rwy lvv6yray itpo<rn- 
ydpeve rh fiky vomy, rh 8^ fi^ 
fcoittv, &s rov Beufioviov irpoffrifial' 
yoyros * Koi rots fihy ireidofiiyois 
ajtir^ truvi<pep9y ro7s t^ fiii irstOo- 
fxeyois /ucre/ucAc. Ibid. iv. 3, 12 : 
(Tol 8* 1^ (Euthydemus), & 
^Kparts, ioiKOffiy ^ri (pt^iKdn-tpov 
fj ro7s &\\ot5 xpVoSai (sc.ot OtoY) 
dye firiB^ hr^pivrdifJityoi hTc6 <rov 
ifpoffiiyuaiyovffi <roi & re xph ^oiw 
Kol & fj^i. Still both statements 
may be harmonised as in the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap heavenly voice makes itself heard ai*e in point of value 


and character veiy diflferent. Besides a concern of 
such deep personal interest to Socrates as his judicial 
condemnation, besides a question having such a far- 
reaching influence on his whole activity as that 
whether he should take part in public life or not, it 
expresses itself on occasions quite unimportant.* It 
is in fact a voice so familiar to Socrates and hif^ 
friends,^ that whilst regarded as a something enigma- 
tical, mysterious, and unknown before, affording, too, 
a special proof of divine providence, it can neverthe- 
less be discussed without awe and mystery in easy 
and even in flippant language. The facts of the 
phenomenon resolve themselves into this, that not 
imfrequently Socrates was kept back by a dim feeling 
based on no conscious consideration, in which he 
discerned a heavenly sign and a divine hint, from 
carrying out some thought or intention. Were he 
asked why this sign had been vouchsafed to him, 
from his point of view the reply would be, because 
that from which it deterred him would be harmful to 
himself or others.^ In order, therefore, to justify 

text. Evidently Plato is more before all things at proving 

accurate. His language is far Socrates' divination to be the 

more definite than that of same as other divinations, and 

Xenophon, and is throughout so defending his teacher from the 

consistent, witness the various charge of religious innovation, 

cases mentioned in the previous As to the special peculiarity of 

note. Xenophon, as is his wont, the Socratic haifHAviov and its 

confined himself to what caught inner processes, we can look to 

the eye, to the fact that the Plato for better information. 

BaifiSviov enabled Socrates to * wdw ^irl fffunpoTs, See p. 

judge of actions whose conse- 86, 2. 

quences were uncertain, all the * iriivv wKvii. IHd. 

more so because he aimed » It will be subsequently 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



the utterances of the BatfAOvtov^ and to give its 
raison cPStre^ he attempted to prove that the actions 
which it approved or occasioned were the most 
heneficial and advantageous.^ The Satjloviov appeared 
therefore to him as an internal revelation from 
heaven respecting the result of his actions, in a word 
as an internal oracle. As such it is expressly 
included, both by Xenophon ^ and Plato,^ under the 
general conception of divination, and placed on a par 
with divination by sacrifice and the flight of birds. 
Of itjis therefore true. what Xenophon's Socrates 
remarks respecting all divination, that it may only 
-be resorted to for cases which man cannot discover 
himself by reflection.* 



shown that Socrates was, on 
the one hand thoroughly con- 
vinced of the care of God for 
man down to the smallest 
matters, and on the other 
hand was accustomed to esti- 
mate the value of every action 
by its consequences. It fol- 
lowed herefrom that to his 
mind the only ground on which 
God could forbid an action 
was because of its ill-conse- 

* See Xen, Mem. iv. 8, 6, 
where Socrates observes that 
the Zcufju6viov forbad him to pre- 
pare a defence, and then pro- 
ceeds to discuss the reasons 
why the deity found an inno- 
cent death better for him than 
a longer life. In Plato, Apol. 
40, 3, he concludes, from the 
sUenoe of the h(uii6viov during 
his defence, that the condemna- 
tion to vhich it led would be 
for him i benefit. 

* Xen. Mem. i. 1, 3 ; iv. 3, 12 ; 
i. 4, 14. Conf. Apol. 12. 

» Apol. 40, A. ; Phaed. 242, C. ; 
Euthyphro, 3, B. 

•• Xe/i. Mem. i. 1, 6: rh fikv 
iLvayKcua <rvv^^o\)\€v^ Koi vpdrTuy 
us iydfjLi^iy iptar* &v vpax^VJ^ctf 
vepl ih rwv &$^Aei;v Sirws tiv airo- 
fi^<roiro f/LavTev(rofi4vovs (irefjLxey 
«! 9roii}Tca. For this reason, 
therefore, divination was re- 
quired: reKrouuchy fikv yhp ^ 
XoXicevrurby^ ^ yeotpyiKhy fj &ydp<i>- 
"ktay iipxifchy ^ r&v roiovrtav %pywv 
i^traaruchy fj \oyurruchy fl oixoyo- 
fUKhy fj OTparrryihhv 7«W<r6oi, 
xdvra r& roiavra fxaB^fixtra kclI 
kvBp^ov 7V(i>^]7 alptria iy6iJii(€ 
ehai ' T& Bk fiiytara rwy iv rov- 
rois iipri robs &eovs ictinots icaro- 
Xtlvwdai &y obSkv Bfi\oy tJytu 
rois Mpfloitois. The greatest 
things, however, as is imme- 
diately explained, are the con- 
sequences of actions, the ques- 
tion whether they are useful 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Herewith the whole field of philosophical inquiry 
is excluded from the province of the Baifioviov, This 
(c) Limi- field Socrates, more than any one of his predecessors, 
a^iiea' claimed for intelligent knowledge and a thorough 
^*''- understanding. As a matter of fact, no instance 

occurs of a scientific principle or a general moral law 
being referred to the Sai/noviov. Nor must the sage's 
conviction of his own higher mission be confounded 
with his belief in the heavenly sign, nor the deity by 
whom he considered himself commissioned t:> sift 
men be identified with the Saifj^ovLov.^ The fact 
that Socrates thought to hear the heavenly voice 
from the time when he was a boy, ought to be 
suflScient evidence to warn against such an error ; ^ 
for at that time he cannot possibly have had any 
thought of a philosophic calling. That voice, more- 
over, according to Plato, always deterring, never 
prompting,^ cannot have been the source of the 
positive command of the deity to which Socrates 

or detrimental to the doer. 
Accordingly Socrates observes 
that it is madness to think to 
be able to dispense with divi- 
nation, and to do everything 
by means of one's own intelli- 
gence (and as he afterwards 
adds, kdiiuifra. iroicii/^ : Baifiovav 
8i rohs fiavrcvofjiivovSf & rois 
avBpdfvois ISctffcov ol Oeol [laJdovffL 
9iaKpltf€iv, examples of which 
are then given. Conf . iv. 3, 12, 
where fiayriK^, and also the 
Socratic fiavriicTt, is said to 
refer to consequences (tA a-vfi- 
^epoyraj r^ iLirofiri(r6fi€ya')y and 
the appropriate means (rj hu 

t^urra yiyvoivro), 

* This was often done in 
former times ; for instance by 
Meiners, Verm. Schrift. iii. 24, 
and still more so by LSlut, 1. c. 
p. 113, who sees in the Behs 
from whom Socrates derived 
his vocation a proof of his 
belief in a genius. The same 
mistake is committed by Vol- 
quardsetif 1. c. p. 9, 12, against 
whose view see Alberti, Socr. 

'^ 4k xou^Ss. See above p. 
87, 1. 

» See p. 87, 2. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




referred his activity as a teacher.^ Nor is it ever Chap. 
deduced therefrom, either by Xenophon or by Plato. 
Socrates indeed says that the deity had given him the 
task of sifting men, that the deity had forced him to 
this line of lif|^; ^ but he never says that he had 
received this commission from the Sacfioviov.^ To 
this he is only indebted for peculiar assistance in hip 
philosophic calling, which consists more particularly 
in its dissuading liim from proving faithless to his 
calling by meddling with politics.* 

. Lastly, the Satfiovtov^ has been often regarded as 
the voice of conscience,^ but this view is at once too 
wide and too narrow. Understanding by conscience 
the moral consciousness in general, and more particu- 
larly the moral sense as far as this finds expression 
in the moral estimate of our every action, its moni- 
tions are not confined to future things as are the 
monitions of the Socratic Saifioviov. Nay, more, 
it more frequently makes itself felt in the first 
place by the approval or disapproval following upon 

> See p. 60, 2 ; 82, 1. Griech. Phil. i. 243 is a modi- 
« Plato, Apol. 23, B. ; 28, D. ; fication of the above). Breiten- 
33, C. ; Theaet. 150, C. iaeh, Zeitschrift fiir das Gym- 
' " It is not true, as Vol- nasialwesen, 1863, p. 499 ; 
qna/fdsenf 1. c. B., says, that Rotsc/wr, Arist. 256. Ribbing, 
in Plato, Apol. 31, D., Socrates too, 1. c. 27, defends this view, 
mentions the ^ii6vkov as the observing, however, that the 
Urst and exclusive olrioj/ of his ^<ufjL6yioy (1) only manifests 
mode of life. He there only itself as conscientia antecedens 
attributes to the ^oufidyiov his and concomitans, not as con- 
abstinence from politics, not scientia subsequens; and (2) 
his attention to philosophy. that its meaning is not ex- 

* See p. 86, 2. hausted with the conception of 

* Staffer, Biogr. Univers. ^T. conscience, but that it figures 
xlii. Socrate, p. 631 ; Bra/ndU, as * practical moral tact in re- 
Gesch. d. Griech. Rom. Phil, spect of personal relations and 
ii. a, 60 (G«sch. d. Entwick. d. particular actipns.* 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap, actions. Again, conscience exclusively refers to 
the moral value or worthlessness of an action, 
whereas the heavenly sign in Socrates always bears 
reference to the consequences of actions. Therein 
Plato, no less than Xenophon, sees a peculiar kind 
of prophecy. Allowing that Socrates was occasion-^ 
ally mistaken as to the character of the feelings and 
impulses which appeared to him revelations, that 
now and then he was of opinion that the deity had 
forbidden him something for the sake of its preju- 
dicial consequences when the really forbidding power 
was his moral sense, yet the same cannot be said of 
all the utterances of the Bacfiovcov. Doubtless iii 
deterring him from taking up politics, the real 
motive lay in the feeling that a political career was 
incompatible with his conviction of. an important 
higher calling, to which he had devoted his life. It 
may, therefore, be said that in this case a scruple of 
conscience had assumed the form of a heavenly voice. 
But in forbidding to prepare a speech for judicial 
defence, this explanation will no longer apply. Here 
the only explanation which can be given of the 
heavenly voice, is that such a taking in hand of his 
own personal interests did not commend itself to the 
sage's line of thought, and that it appeared unworthy 
of him to defend himself otherwise than by a plain 
statement of the truth requiring no preparation.^ 

* VolqtLardsen 1. c. confounds Apol. 17, A., as meaning that it 

two things in explaining the was not a question of a simple 

prohibition, mentioned by Xen, defence, but of a defence in 

Mem. iv. 8, 4, to prepare a the usual legal style with all 

defence in the sense of Plato, the tricks and manoeuvres of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



All this, however, has little to do with judgments Chap. 

respecting what is morally admissible or not, and 
has much to do with the questions as to what is 
suited or unsuited to the individual character of the- 
philosopher. Still less can the decision respecting 
the receiving back pupils * who have once deserted 
him, be referred to conscience. The question here 
really was as to the capacity of the respective persons^ 
to profit by his instructions. It involved, therefore^ 
a criticism of character. The jokes, too, which 
Socrates and his friends permitted themselves as to- 
the hatfwvLov^ were wholly out of place, if the 
Saifiopcov were conscience. As far as they are founded 
on fact, they afford a proof that the Saifioviov must 
be distinguished from moral sense or conscience; 
and it is quite in harmony herewith to hear Socrates 
say,^ that the heavenly voice often made itself heard 
on quite unimportant occasions. Remembering fur- 
ther that Socrates was more than anyone else, perhaps, 
bent on referring actions to clear conceptions, and ' 
accordingly excluded from the field of prophecy, and 
therefore from the province of the hafwviov^ every- 

an orator. In Xenophon's ac- very much worthy of himself, 

count there is not a word of But as Oron in Eos. i. 175 

this. Had this heen his mean- observes : what idea must we 

ing, it must somehow have form to ourselves of Socrates, 

been indicated in the sequel ; if he required the assistance of 

it would have been said that the ZaiiUviov to keep him back 

the ZaifUviov kept him from de- from that ^ich he clearly 

fending himself, because a de- saw to l^e incompatible with 

fence in keeping with his prin- his principles ? 

ciples would have been useless ; * See above p. 86, 2, No. 4. 

it is by no means a matter of * Ihid, No. 6, 7. 

course that he would not have " Ibid, No. 3. 
been able to get up a speech 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, thing that might be known by personal reflection,* 
' we shall see how little right we have to understand 
the Saifioviov as having principally or wholly to do 
with the moral value of an action. 
(^d) Pliilo' The heavenly voice appears rather to be the 
explatm- general form, which a vivid, but in its origin unex- 
^Zm6{iw'' plo^^d sense of the propriety of a particular action 
assumed for the personal consciousness of Socrates.'^ 
The actions to which this sense referred could, as we 
have seen, be most varied in content and importance. 
Quite as varied must the inward processes and 
motives have been out of which it grew. It 
might be some conscientious scruple pressing on the 
sense of the sage without his being fully conscious 
thereof. It might be some apprehension of the 
consequences of a step, such as sometimes rises as a 
first impression with all decidedness in the experi- 
enced observer of men and of circumstances, before it 
is even possible for him to account to himself for the 
reasons of his misgiving. It might be that an action 
in itself neither immoral nor inappropriate, jarred 
on Socrates' feelings, as not being in harmony with 
his peculiar mode of being and conduct. It might 
be that on unimportant occasions all those unaccount- 
able influences and impulses came into play, which 
contribute so much to our mental attitude and de- 

* See p. 89, 4. of which he had discovered. 

'^ The last remark follows Nor does it conflict herewitli, 
not only from what has been that after the heavenly voice 
stated, p. 89, 4, but it is also has made itself heard, he after- 
inconceivable that Socrates wards considers what can have 
could have referred to a higher led the Gods to thus reveal 
inspiration impulses tlie sources their will. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



cisions ; all the more so in proportion as the object 
itself affords less definite grounds for decision. In 
this respect the Baifidviov has been rightly called ' the 
inner voice of individual tact,' ) understanding by tact 
a general sense of propriety in word and action as 
exemplified in the most varied relations of life in 
small things as well as in great.* This sense Soc- 
rates early noticed in himself as unusually strong,^ 
and subsequently by his peculiarly keen and unwearied 
observation of himself and other men he developed 
it to such a pitch of accuracy, that it was seldom 
or as he believed never at fault. Its psychologi- 
cal origin was, however, concealed from his own 
consciousness. It assumed for him from the begin- 
ning the appearance of a foreign influence, a higher 
revelation, an oracle.* 

Herein is seen the strength of the hold which 
the beliefs of his countrymen had over Socrates ; * 



* Hermann, Platonismus i. 
236 : similarly KHsehe, For- 
schiing. i. 231. 

' The objections hereto raised 
by Volqua/rdsen, pp. 56, 63, and 
Alberti, Socr. 68, are partly 
answered by the argument 
which has preceded. Besides, 
they have more reference to 
words than to things. So far 
as this is the case, there is no 
use in disputing. By tact we 
Tmderstand not only social but 
moral tact, not only acquired 
but natural tact, and this word 
seems very appropriate to ex- 
press the sense which Socrates 
described as the ZaifUpiov. 

* See p. 88, 3. 

* Hegely Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 77 : 

The genius of Socrates is not 
Socrates himself. . . . but an 
oracle, which^ however, is not 
external, but subjective, his 
oracle. It bore the form of 
knowledge, which was, how- 
ever, connected with a certain 

* KrUche 1. c. : What is not 
in our power, what our nature 
cannot bear, and what is not 
naturally found in our im- 
pulses or our reflections, is 
involuntary^ or according to 
the notion of the ancients, 
heavenly : to this category be- 
long enthusiasm and prophecy, 
the violent throb of desire, the 
mighty force of feelings. 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap, herewith, too, are exposed to view the limits of his 
self-knowledge. Feelings whose origin he has not 
discovered are seen to exercise over him an irresistible 
power. On the other hand, the Saifi6vu)v when it does 
speak, takes the place of the usual signs and por- 
tents. Hegel * not without reason sees herein a proof 
that the determining motives of action, which in the 
case of the Greek oracles were things purely exter- 
nal, have come to be sought in man himself. To 
misgivings incapable of being resolved into clear 
conceptions, a high importance was here attached ; 
in them a very revelation of deity was seen, proving 
most clearly that the human mind, in a way hitherta 
foreign to Greeks, had come to occupy itself with 
itself, and carefully to observe what transpired within. 
The power which these feelings early exercised over 
Socrates, the devotion with which he even then 
listened for the voice within, afiFords an insight into 
the depths of his emotional nature. In the boy we 
see the embryo of the man, for whom self-knowledge 
was the most pressing business of life, for whom un- 
tiring observation of his moral and mental con- 
ditions, analysis of notions and actions, reasoning as 
to th^ir character and testing of their value were 
primary necessities.^ 

The same tone of mind also shows itself in other 
peculiarities of Socrates, to his contemporaries appear- 
ing so strange. At times he was seen lost in thought, 
so as to be unconscious of what transpired aroimd 

> Hegel 1. c. and Recht*s * Conf. Plato, Apol. 38 
Philosophie, § 279, p. 369. See above, p. 60, 3. 




him ; at times going on his way regardless of the Chap. 

habits of his fellows ; his whole appearance displaying '_ 

a far-reaching iidifiFerence to external things, a one- 
sided preference of the useful to the beautiful. What 
do all these traits show if not the importance which 
he attached to the study of self, to the solitary work 
of thought, to a free determination of self indepen- 
dent of foreign judgments ? Remarkable as it may 
seem to find the dryness of the man of intellect and 
the enthusiasm of the man of feeling united in one 
and the same person, both features may be referred 
to a common source. What distinguishes Socrates 
in his general conduct from his fellow-citizens was 
this power of inward concentration. This struck his 
c<9;emporaries as being so foreign an element, and 
thereby an irreparable breach was made in the artistic 
unity of Greek life. 

What the general importance of this peculiarity 
may be, and what traces it has left in history, are 
questions to answer which we must enquire into the 
Socratic philosophy. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 






A. Xeno- 
phaii and 

To give an accurate account of the philosophy of 
Socrates is a work of some difficulty, owing to the well- 
known divergence of the earliest accounts. Socrates 
committed nothing to writing himself; ^ of the works 
of his pupils, in which he is introduced as speaking, 
only those of Xenophon and Plato are preserved.^ 
These are, however, so little alike, that we gather 
from the oii^^22jte a difiFerent view of the teaching 
of Socrates^^ what the other gives us. Among 
early historians of philosophy it was the fashion to 
construct a picture of the Athenian sage, without 
principles and criticism, indiscriminately from the 
writings of Xenophon and Plato, no less than from 

* The nnimportant poetical 
attempts of his last days (Plato, 
Phsedo, 60, C.) can hardly be 
counted as writings, even if they 
were extant. They appear, 
however, to have been very soon 
lost. The Paean at least, 
which Themist. (Or. ii. 27, c.) 
considers genuine, was rejected 
by the ancient critics, accord- 
ing to Biog, ii. 42. The 
spurionsness of the Socratic 
letters is beyond question, and 
that Socrates committed nO' 

thing to writing is clear from 
the silence of Xenophon, Plato, 
and all antiqnity, not to men- 
tion the positive testimony of 
Oic. de Orat. iii. 16, 60 ; IHog. 
i. 16; Plut, De Alex. Virt. i. 
4. A conclusive discussion on 
this point in ref ntation of the 
views of Leo AUatius is given 
by Olearius in Stanl. Hist. 
Phil. 198. 

* For instance, those of ^s- 
chines, Antisthenes, Phaedo. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



later, and for the most part indiflferent, authorities. Chap, 
Since the time of Brueker, however, Xenophon came 
to be regarded as the only authority to be perfectly 
trusted for the philosophy of Socrates ; to all others, 
Plato included, at most only a supplementary value 
was allowed. Quite recently, however, Schleierma- 
cher has lodged a protest against this preference of 
Xenophon.^ Xenophon, he argues, not being a phi- 
losopher himself, was scarcely capable of under- 
standing a philosopher like Socrates. The object, 
moreover, of the Memorabilia was a limited one, to 
defend his teacher from definite charges. We are 
therefore justified in assuming a priori that there 
was more in Socrates than Xenophon describes* 
Indeed, there must have been more, or he could not 
have played the part he did in the history of philo- 
sophy, nor have exerted so marvellous a power of 
attraction on the most intellectual and cultivated 
men of his time. The character, too, which Plato 
gives him would otherwise have too flatly contradicted 
the picture of him present to the mind of his reader. 
Besides, Xenophon's dialogues create the impression 
that philosophic matter has, with detriment to its 
meaning, been put into the imphilosophic language 
of every-day life ; and that there are gaps left, to 
supply which we are obliged to go to Plato. Not that 
we can go so far as Meiners,^ and say that only those 

* On the philosophical merits p. 60. Conf. Gesch. d. Phil. 
o Socrates, SohletermacJiert p. 81. 

Werke, iii. 2, 293, first printed « (Jeschichte der Wissen- 
in Abhandlungen der Berliner schaften in Griechenland und 
Academic, Philos. Kl. 1818, Bom, 11, 420. 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 


CHAPir parts of the dialogues of Plato can be considered his- 

, 1 torical, which are either to be found in Xenophon, or 

immediately follow from what Xenophon says, or which 
are opposed to Plato's own views. This hypothesis 
would only give us the Socrates of Xenophon slightly 
modified, whilst the deeper spring of Socratic thought 
would still be wanting. The only safe course to 
pursue is that adopted by Schleiermacher — ^to ask. 
What may Socrates have been, in addition to what 
Xenophon reports, without gainsaying the character 
and maxims which Xenophon distinctly assigns to 
him ? and what w/iiat he have been to call for and 
to justify such a description as is given of him in the 
dialogues of Plato? Schleiennacher's estimate of 
Xenophon * has been since adopted by several other 
writers ; and even previously to Schleiermacher, 
Dissen ^ had declared that he could pnly see in the 
pages of Xenophon a description of the outward 
appearance of Socrates. The like approval has been 
bestowed on Schleiennacher's canon for finding out 

» ^m7MK*,inIlhein. Mus. von has himself failed to observe 

MeUih/r und BraiidiSi i. b. 122. in rising the Phaedo (see above, 

Conf . Gesch. d. Gr.-Rom. Philos. p..69). In respect of the person- 

ii. a. 20 ; Bitter, Gtesch. d. Phil, ality of Socrates rather than hi» 

ii. 44 ; Ribbing, Ueber d. Ver- teaching, Van ff&usde (Charac- 

haltniss zwisc'hen den Xeno- terismi principnm philosopho- 

phont. nnd den Platon. Be- rum veterum, p. 54) gives a 

richten iiber Socrates. Upsala preference to Plato*s picture 

Universitets Arskrift, 1870, as being truer to life than 

specially p. 1, 125. Alberti, Xenophon's Apology, 

too (Socrates, 6), takes in the • De philosophia moral! in 

main the side of Schleier- Xenophontis de Socrate com- 

macher, whilst allowing that mentariis tradita, p. 28 (in 

Plattt,'8 accomit can only be 2>iMd;»*« Kleineren Schriften, p. 

used for history with extreme 87). 
caution — a caution which he 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the real Socrates; only to supplement it has the Chap. 
remark been made,^ that the language used by ' ^' 
Aristotle respecting the teaching of Socrates may be 
also employed to determine its outside aspect. On 
the other hand, Xenophon's authority has been ^ 
warmly supported by several critics.^ 

In deciding between these two views, a difficulty, 
however, presents itself. The authority of the one or 
the other of our accounts can only be ascertained by 
a reference to the true historical picture of Socrates, 
and the true historical picture can only be known 
from these conflicting accounts. This difficulty 
would be insurmoimtable, if the two narratives had 
the same claim to be considered historical in points 
which they state varyingly. Indeed, Aristotle's 
scanty iiotices respecting the Socratic philosophy 
would have been insufficient to settle the question, 
«ven on the assumption that he had other sources of 
information at command beside the writings of 
Xenophon and Plato —an assumption for which there 
is not the least evidence. I But if one thing is clearer 
than another, it is this,-^^^^at Plato^nly claims tobe 
true to facts in those descriptions in which he agrees 
with Xenophon, as for instance, in the Apology and 
the Symposium. On other points no one could well 
assert that he wished all to be taken as historical 

' By Brandts, 1. c ^ 22. Conf . Fries, Gesch. d. 

- He^el Gesch. d. Phil. ii. PhiL i. 259. For further lite- 

6d ; Ri/tscher, AjiatophaixieB \md rature on this point consult 

aein ZeitaXtei, -p. SdS;Hermimn, Hwmdall, De philosophia mo- 

Gesch* und Syst. des Platonis- raJiSocratis (Heidelberg, 1853), 

mus, i. 249 ; Labriola, La dot- p. 7, and Ribbinff, L c. 
trina di Socrate (Napoli, 1871), 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap, which he puts into the mouth of Socrates. Of Xeno-- 
phoD, on the contrary, it may be granted that, 
whether from his deficiency in philosophic sense, or 
from his exclusively practical tastes, not unftequently 
the scientific meaning and the inner connection of 
the principles of Socrates escape his notice. Nor 
must we ever forget that the Memorabilia are prima- 
rily intended to be a defence of his teacher against 
the charges brought against him, which charges were 
the cause of his condemnation, and passed current 
years after his death. For this purpose a description 
was requisite, not so much of his philosophy as of 
his morals and religion, setting forth his piety, hi& 
integrity, his obedience to the laws, his services to 
his friends and fellow-citizens rather than his intel- 
lectual convictions; and Xenophon candidly con-^ 
fosses that this is the main object of his treatise.* 
Even the question, whether, with the means at his 
command, a life-like reproduction of the dialogues of 
Socrates can be expected from Xenophon, cannot be 
answered afl&rmatively without some limitation. His 
treatise was not written until six years after the 
death of Socrates, and we have not the least indica- 
tion that it was based on notes made either by him- 
self or others in the time immediately following the 
dialogues.^ What was committed to writing years 

* Mem. i. 1, 1 and 20 ; 2, 1 ; discourses at home and filled 

3, 1 ; iv. 4, 25 ; 5, 1 ; 8, 11. up their sketches by further 

' It cannot be inferred from enquiries. Nay, the very dis- 

PlatOf Symp. 172, C. ; 173, B. ; courses which are vouched for 

Theaet. 143, A., that Socrates' by this supposed care, cannot 

friends (as Volqiiardsen, Daemon possibly be historical. Such 

d. Sokr. 6, says) took down his statements cannot therefore 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


afterwards from his own or his friends' memory has Chap. 
not the claim to accuracy of a verbal report, but ^' 
rather owes to himself its more definite form and 
setting. No doubt it was his intention to give a true 
account of Socrates and his teaching. He says that 
he writes from his own recollection. He expressly 
observes in a few cases that he was ^present during 
the dialogue, but had heard similar things from 
others, mentioning his authority.^ If, then, many a 
Socratic discourse is unknown to him or has escaped 
his memory, if one or other line of thought has not 
been thoroughly understood, or its philosophical 
importance misimderstood by him, it may neverthe- 
less be assiuned that a pupil of Socrates, accustomed ^..^ 
to consort with him for years, and able to commu- 
nicate all that Xenophon actually communicates, 
neither repeats on the whole what is false, nor leave^. /! ^^^ 
any essential side of the Socratic teaching untouched 
From Plato, indeed, so far as his description is hl&i , 
torical or permits a reference to the Socrates of history, 
many a trait supplementary of Xenophon's narra- 
tive may be expected, and many an explanation of 
the real meaning of sayings, which his fellow-pupil 
reports as understood only from the standpoint of 

mean more than similar ones .... roinwp 8^ ypd^ &K6tra Uv 

in Farm. 126, B. Neither does Sta/xi^/Aoyc^o-w. iv. 3, 2 ; others 

Mem. i. 4, 1 refer to writings have reported similar conver- 

of pupils of Socrates, but to sation^ respecting the Gk)ds, at 

the views of opponents. Mem. which they were present : fy«l» 

iv. 3, 2 appears to refer not Zk 8rc jrp6s EMhifiov roidlS* 

even to writings, bat to oral 9itK4yero xaptytvSfAriv. iv. 8, 4 : 

communications. \4^n 8^ Kat & *EpfMy4rov9 rov 'Iir- 

* Mem. i. 3, 6 : &s 9h 8^ koX wovIkov ^Kowra ircpl abrov, 
^cActv 4Z6k€i fJLOt rohs ^vy6tfTas 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 






B. Philo- 


practical utility. Hence objection can hardly be taken 
to the above-quoted canon of Schleiermacher.* Ne- 
vertheless, it is highly improbable that in essential 
points there should be an irreconcilable difference 
between Xenophon's description and that which we 
may take for historically established as Plato's.^ The 
real state of the case, however, can only be ascer- 
tained by examining the statements of various 
authorities in detail to test their worth and theii* 
agreement, and this enquiry naturally coincides with 
the exposition of the Socratic teaching, from which it 
could only be distinguished in point of form. It will 
not, therefore, be separated from it here. Socrates 
wiU be described from the three accounts of Xeno- 
phon, Plato, and Aristotle. If the attempt to form 
a harmonious picture from these sources succeeds, 
Xenophon wiU be vindicated. Should it not succeed, 
it will then be necessary to ask, which of the tradi- 
tional accoimts is the true one.* 

To begin with the question as to the philosophi- 
cal platform and fundamental principle of Socrates. 
Here the sketches of our main authorities seem to 
give groimd for the most opposite views. According 

» P. 100. 

* As Ribhingy 1. c. asserts. 
Hard is it to reconcile herewith 
that Bibbing declines to ques- 
tion * the essentially historical 
accuracy' of Xenophon's de- 

* The course here followed 
is also in the main that taken 
by Striimpellf Gesch. d. Prakt. 
Philos. d. Gr. i. 116. He con- 
siders it impossible to distin- 

guish in point of speculation 
what belongs to Socrates and 
what belongs to Plato. Ah 
regards morals, he hopes to 
gain a true general view oi' 
Socrates by taking the TnaYinns 
which are attributed to him 
unanimously by Xenophon, 
Plato, and Aristotle, following 
them out to their consequences, 
and testing the traditions by 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



to Plato, Socrates appears as an expert thinker, at Chap. 
home in all branches of knowledge; whereas, in __ 

Xenophon he is represented far less as a philosopher 
than as a man innocent and excellent, full of piety 
and conmaon sense. Hence Xenophon's accoimt is 
specially appealed to in support of the conception of 
Socrates as a popular moral man, holding aloof from 
all speculative questions, and in fact as fai* less of a 
philosopher than a teacher of morality and instructor 
of youth. ^ It certainly cannot be denied that 
Socrate§^4«ja8 full of the most lively enthusiasm for 
morality, and made it the business of his life to 
exercise a moral influence upon others.^ Had he 
only discharged this function after the unscientific 
manner of a popular teacher, by imparting and 
inculcating the received notions of duty and virtue, 
the influence would be inexplicable which he exerted, 
not only over weaklings and hairbrains, but over the 
most talented and cultivated of his cotemporaries. It 
would be a mystery what induced Plato to connect 
the deepest philosophical enquiries with his person, or 
what led all later philosophers, down to Aristotle, 
nay even down to the Stoics and Neoplatonists, to 

* How common this view 181, that Socrates ^regarded the 

was in past times, needs not to speculative philosophy which 

be proved by authorities which aimed at general knowledge, 

abound from Cicero down to as useless, vain, and foolish,' 

Wiggers and Beinhold. That and that he * took the field not 

it is not yet altogether ex- only against the Sophists as 

ploded may be gathered not only pretenders to knowledge, but 

from writers like Vati Hevsdey against all philosophy ; ' in 

Characterismi, p. 53, but even short, that ' he was no philo- 

Maa-hach, a disciple of the sopher.' 

Hegelian philosophy, asserts in ^ Conf . Apol. 23, D. ; 30, £. ; 

his Gesch. d. Philos. i. 174, 178, 38, A., and above, p. 49. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Ohap. regard him as the founder of a new epoch, and to 
trace their own peculiar systems to the movement 
set on foot by him. 

Even in himself and his doings more than one 
feature is at variance with this conception. Whereas 
it would follow herefrom that knowledge is only of 
value in as far as it is instrumental for action, so far 
was Socrates from sharing this belief that he consi-^ 
dered actions only then to have a value when they 
proceed from correct knowledge; that he referred 
moi-al action or virtue to knowledge, making its per- 
fection depend on perfection of knowledge. Whereas, 
according to the ordinary assumption, he would in 
his intercourse with others have before all things 
aimed at moral training, so far was it otherwise that 
it appears from his own words that love of knowledge 
was the original motive for his activity.* Accordingly 
we observe him in his dialogues pursuing enquiries, 
which not only have no moral purpose,^ but which, 

* Plato, Apol. 21, where So- subordinate one ; he was no 

crates deduces his whole acti- doubt really actuated by the 

vity from the fact that he pur- motive mentioned in the Apo- 

sued a real knowledge. logy, a praiseworthy curiosity 

' Examples are to be found to learn from intercourse with 
in the conversations (Mem. iii. all classes, whether they were 
10), in which Socrates conducts clearly conscious of what their 
the painter Parrhasius, the arts were for. Xenophon him- 
sculptor Clito, and Pistias, the self attests this, Mem, iv. 6, 1 : 
forger of armour, to the con- aKOT&v ohv raiis ffwovfft, ri lica- 
ceptions of their respective crov eftj rSiv tvrwv o^Seirc^ror' 
arts. It is true Xenophon in- tXriy^v. This pursuit of the 
troduces these conversations conceptions of things, aiming 
with the remark that Socrates not at the application of know- 
knew how to make himself ledge, but at knowledge itself, 
useful to artisans. But the is quite enough to prove that 
desire to make himself useful Socrateswas not only a preacher 
can only have been a very of virtue, but a philosopher. 

Digitized by VjOOQ-IC 



in their practical application, could only serve im- 
moral purposes.^ These traits are not met with ex- 
clusively in one or other of our authorities, but they 
are equally diflfused through the accounts given by 
the three main sources, Socrates can therefore not 
possibly have been the unscientific moral teacher for 
which he was formerly taken. Knowledge must have 
had for him a very different value and importance from 
what it would have had on such a supposition. It may 
not even be assumed that the knowledge which he 
sought was ultimately only pursued for the sake of 
action, and only valued as a means to morality.^ He 
who pursues knowledge in this sense, only as a means 
to an end which lies beyond him, not from an inde- 
pendent impulse and love.^ knowing, will never 
study so carefuUx aiid so mdependentlyjihe-problem 
andjnethod_of^jdiilosophicj:eseairch as__SQcrates did ; 
will never be a reformer of philosophy as he was. 


Even Xenophon found some 
difficulty in bringing it into har- 
mony with his practical view 
of things, as his words show: 
from which it may be seen that 
Hocrates made his friends more 
critical. But criticism is the 
organ of knowledge. 

1 Mem. iii. 11 contains a 
paragraph adapted more than 
any other to refute the idea 
that Socrates was only a popu- 
lar teacher. Socrates hears one 
of his companions commending 
the beauty of Theodota, and at 
once goes with his company to 
see her. He finds her acting 
as a painter's model, and he 
thereupon enters into a conver- 

sation with her, in which he 
endeavours to lead her to a 
conception of her trade, and 
shows her how she wiU best be 
able to win lovers. Now, al- 
though such a step would not 
give that offence to a Greek 
which it would to us, still 
there is not the least trace of a 
moral purpose in his conduct. 
Brandu' (Gesch. d. Entw. i. 
236) remarks are little to the 
point. A purely critical inter- 
est leads Socrates to refer to 
its general conception every 
action across which he comes, 
regardless of its moral value. 
* Rihhingy Socrat. Stud. i. 46. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Chap. Nay more, he would have been incapable of exerting 
the deep reforming influence over Ethics which, 
according to the testin^iony of history, he did exert, 
had he thus confined himself to practical interests. 
His importance for Ethics is derived not so much 
from the fact that he insisted on a re-establishment 
of moral life — this Aristophanes and without doubt 
many others did, — but from his recognising that a 
scientific basis for moral convictions must be an 
indispensable condition for any real reform of morals. 
Herewith it is presupposed that practical problems 
are determined and vindicated by knowledge; in other 
words, that knowledge not merely subserves action, 
but leads and governs it — ^a view never as yet held 
by any one who did not attribute to knowledge an 
independent value of its own. If, therefore, Socrates, 
as we shall note, confined himself in principle to 
enquiries having for man a practical value, it can 
only be inferred that he was not himself fully con- 
scious of the range of his thought. In practice he 
went beyond these limits, treating ethical questions 
in such a manner as no one oould do unless fired , 
with an independent loveWk^wledge. 

The area is thus determined within which the fun- 
damental conception of the Socratic philosophy must 
be looked for. True knowledge is the treasure to 
discover which Socrates goes forth in the service of 
the Delphic God; to gain the knowledge of the 
essence of things, he, with his friends, unweariedly 
labours ; to true knowledge he ultimately refers all 
moral demands. The force with which he asserted 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




this demand constitutes him tlie creator in Greece 

of an independent system of morality. For him it 

is not enough that men should do what is right; they C. His 

must also know why they do it. He demands that 

they should not follow a dark impulse, an undefined ^^^nrnts 

•^ , %n concept 

enthusiasm or the aptitude of habit, hut should act tions. 

from clear consciousness ; and because it was deficient 
in this characteristic, he refuses to allow true wisdom to 
the art of his time, however high it otherwise stood.^ 
In a word, the idea of knowledge forms the central 
point of the Socratic philosophy.^ All philosophy aim- 
ing at knowledge, this point must be further circum- 
scribed to give it precision, which was done in this wise, 
that, whereas the pursuit of true knowledge had been. 

' In Plato, Apol. 22, B., 
Socrates observes : In his sift- 
ing of men he had turned to 
the poets, but had soon found 
that they were usually not able 
to account for their own works. 
"Vyiwy odv . . . . 8ri o^ <ro<l>l(f 

Ktd ipBawrid(oPT9Sy &(nr€p ol dco- 
/idyrtts Kcti XP^V^^^^' ^^ 7^ 
abroi Xiymnri fiJkv roXA.& fca2 kolKOj 
tcsuri 8c odSiv &v Xiyovatv, Be- 
sides, no one knows the limits 
of his knowledge, but thinks 
to understand all things. He 
had also observed the same 
in the x«*f><"'^X''«"> ^^^ re- 
presentatives of sculpture and 

* Sehleiermaohsr, Werke, iii. 
2, 300: ' The awakening of the 
idea of knowledge, and its 
first utterances, must have been 
the substance of the philosophy 
of Socrates.' Bitter agrees 

with this, Gesch. d. Philosophie,- 
ii. 60. Brandis only differs 
in unessential points, Rhein. 
Mus. von MeJmhr umd BrandAsy 
i. 6, 130; Gr.-Rom. Phil. ii. a, 
33. To him the origin of the 
doctrine of Socrates appears to 
be a desire to vindicate against 
the Sophists the absolute worth 
of moral determinations; and 
then he adds : to secure this 
purpose the first aim of So- 
crates was to gain a deeper 
insight into his own conscious- 
ness, in order to be able to dis- 
tinguish false and true know- 
ledge with certainty. Similarly 
BranisSf Gesch. d. Phils. Eant. 
i. 156. The important feature 
in Socrates was this, that to 
him morality appeared to be 
a certain kind of knowledge, 
proceeding from the thought 
of the good inborn in the soul. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, with earlier philosophers an immediate and instinc- 
' tive activity, with Socrates it became conscious and 
methodical. By him the idea of knowledge as know- 
ledge was first brought out, and having been brought 
out, took precedence of every other idea,^ 

This statementjagain, requires further explanation. 
If the love of knowledge was shared also by previous 
philosophers, why, it may be asked, did it not before 
develope into a conscious and critical pursuit ? The 
reason which may be assigned is this : The knowledge 
which earlier philosophers piursued, was, in itself, 
diflferent from the knowledge which Socrates required. 
They were not compelled by their idea of knowledge 
as Socrates was to direct their attention to the in- 
tellectual processes and conditions, by which it was 
truly to be acquired. Such a necessity was, however, 
imposed on Socrates by the principle which the most 
trustworthy accounts unanimously report as the soul of 
all his teaching — that all true knowledge must pro- 
ceed from correct conceptions, and that nothing can 
be known, unless it can be referred to its general 
7 conception, and judged thereby.^ In this principle, 

* Schleiernvaclierj 1. c. 299 ; i.^., as is explained by the con- 
Brandis. text, he referred all doubtful 

* Xenoph, Mem. iv. 6, 1 : points to universal conceptions, 
2wkp<Eti}s Tap Toirf /i^i^ ciS^ras, rf in order to settle them by 
ZKatrrov ^XiirSovl^vrtiiv, Mijn- means of these; iv. 6, 12: 
{c fcal rots &\Aois &v ^iTry^iirQou Htpri 8e Ktd rh 9taX^€cr$cu ovo- 
d^pcurOai' rohs 9^ fiil €Ui6ras oMv fioffBrjvcu 4k rov awtivras Koivp 
Hipri Oavfiaarhy cTveu aOro^s re fiovXtAttrSat^ ^iaXcyovras Kara 
ir<f>dW€ir$ai kcH &KKovs a<f>d?iK€iv * y4vri ra vpirfjxxvHt, ScTv olv irct- 
&v tv€Ka ffKoirSav trhv rots crwowri paaOai Hn fidKurra vphs rovro 
ri %K(urTov eXri r&v tvrtfv, ovS§- ieanhv flrotfiou /TopoffKtvditip, 
<ar«6T0T' ?\iry«. . . §13: iri tV Comp. i. 1, 16, , and the many 
&w6dfiriy iirdyriyt vavra rh¥ Kiyoi^f instances in the Memorabilia. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



simple as it may appear, an entire change was de- 
manded in the intellectual procedure.^ The ordinary 
way is to take things as being what they appear to 
the senses to be ; or if contradictory experiences for- 
bid doing so, to cling to those appearances which make 
the strongest impression on the observer, declaring 
these to be the essence, and thence proceeding to 
farther conclusions. Hitherto this was exactly what 
philosophers had done. Even those who attacked the 
senses as untrustworthy had invariably started from 
one-sided observations, without being conscious of 
the necessity of grounding every judgment on an 


Arigtctle (Met. xiii. 4, 1078, b, 
17, 27) : iUsKpdrovs Z\ ircpl rhi 
llBudts &peria Trpayfiar€vofi4vov koI 
ir€(A ro^wv bpl(itrBai koBcXov 
fifrovPros vpdrrov .... iK^ivos 
wbX&yus ^Chrti rh rl itrrtv , . . 
8^ ydp ioriv & ris ttu ikwoBoiri 
^Kpdr^i diKoims, Tois r' ivcueri- 
Kohs \6yovs kai rh 6pl(tff0cu 
koBSKov. Both are, however, at 
bottom the same. The \6yoi 
hroKTucol are only the means 
for finding miiversal concep- 
tions, and therefore Aristotle 
elsewhere (Met. i. 6, 987, b, 1 ; 
xiii. 9, 1086, b, 3; De Part. 
Anim., i. 1, 642, a, 28) justly 
observes that the seeking for 
universal conceptions or for the 
essence of things is the real 
service rendered to philosophy 
by Socrates. Accordingly, in 
the dialogues which Xenophon 
has preserved, we always see 
him making straight for the 
general conception, the rl itrrty. 
Even in Plato's Aplogy, 22, B., 
he describes his sifting of men 
as Bttpmr^v ri A^otcr, that is to 

say, he asks for the conception 
of the deeds of the practical 
man, or of the poetry of the 
poet. Conf . Meno, 70, A. : 
Phaedr. 262, B. ; 265, D. It 
can, however, hardly be proved 
from Plato that Socrates really 
distinguished ^iricrr^fwi. from 
8<J|o, as Brandis (Gr.-B6m. 
Phil. ii. a, 36 ; Gesch. d. Entw. 
i. 235) would have it ; for we 
cannot decide whetlier passages 
like Meno, 98, B. represent the 
view of Socrates or that of 
Plato. Antisthenes, too, who, 
according to DioffeneSy vi, 17, 
wrote a treatise irepl W|ijj xal 
iiriar'fifjL7is, may owe this dis- 
tinction to the Eleatics. It 
can hardly be found in Xen. 
Mem. iv. 2, 33. In point of 
substance, no doubt the dis- 
tinction was implied in the 
whole conduct of Socrates, and 
in passages such as Xen, Mem. 
iv. 6, 1 ; PlatOy Apol. 21, B. 

* Coiif. what has been said 
above, p. 39, and in Gesch. d. 
Phil. i. 860. 

Digjtized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, exhaustive enquiry into its subject. By means of 

! sophistry this dogmatism had been overthrown. It 

was felt that all impressions derived from the senses 
were relative and personal, that they do not represent 
things as they are, but as they appear ; and, that, 
consequently, whatever we may assert, the opposite 
may be asserted with equal justice. For, if for one 
person at this moment this is true, for another person 
at another moment that is true. 

Similar sentiments are expressed by Socrates- 
relative to the value of common opinions. He is 
aware that they cannot furnish us with knowledge,, 
but only involve us in contradictions^ But he does 
not hence draw the inference of the Sophists, that ne 
knowledge is possible, but only that it is not possible 
in that way. The majority of mankind have no true 
knowledge, because they confine themselves to suppo* 
sitions, the accuracy of which they have never 
examined; only taking into consideration one or 
another property of things, but not their essence. 
Amend this fault ; consider every object in all its 
bearings, and endeavour from this many-sided ob- 
servation to determine the true essence ; you have 
then conceptions instead of vague notions — a regular 
examination, instead of an unmethodical and un- 
conscious procedure — o, true, instead of an imaginary 
knowledge. In thus requiring knowledge of concep- 
tions, Socrates not only broke away from the current 
^aew, but, generally speaking, from all previous 
philosophy. A thorough observation from every side, 
a critical examination, a methodical enquiry consoious 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


of its own basis, was demanded ; all that had hitherto Chap, 
been regarded as knowledge was rejected, because it ' . 

fell short of these conditions ; and at the same time 
the conviction was expressed that, by observing these 
rules, real knowledge could be secured. 

For Socrates this principle had not only an in- D. Mitral 
tellectual, but a more immediate moral value. It is ^^eofthU 
in fact one of the most striking things about him theory. 
that he is unable to distinguish between morality 
and knowledge, and can neither imagine knowledge 
without virtue, nor virtue without knowledge.^ In 
this respect also he is the child of his age, his great- 
ness consisting herein, that with great penetration 
and spirit he gave effect to its requirements and its 
legitimate endeavours. Advancing civilisation having 
created the demand for a higher education amongst 
the Greeks, and the course of intellectual develop- 
ment having diverted attention from the study of 
natmre and fixed it on that of mind, a closer con- 
nection became necessary between philosophy and 
conduct. Only in man could philosophy find its 
highest object ; only in philosophy could the support 
be found which was needed for life. The Sophists 
had endeavoured to meet this requirement with 
great skill and vigour; hence their extraordinary 
success. Nevertheless, their moral philosophy was 
too deficient in tenable ground; by doubting it 
had loosened its intellectual roots only too effectually ; 
hence it degenerated with terrific speed, entering the 

< Particular proof of this will be given subsequently. 


^ Digitized by VjOOQpC 

1X4 80CRATE8. 

Chap, service of every wicked and selfish impulse. Instead 
' of moral life being raised by the influence of philo- 
sophy, both conduct and philosophy had taken the 
same downward course. 

This sad state of things Socrates thoroughly 
imderstood. Whilst, however, his contemporaries, 
either blind with admiration for the Sophistic teach- 
ing, were insensible to its dangers, or else through 
dread of these, and with a singular indifference to the 
wants of the times and the march of history, de- 
nounced the innovators in the tone of Aristophanes, 
he with keener penetration could distinguish between 
what was right and what was wrong in the spirit of 
the age. The insufficiency of the older culture, the 
want of basis in ordinary virtue, the obscurity of the 
prevailing notions so full of contradictions, the ne- 
cessity for intellectual education, all were felt and 
taught by him as much as by anyone of the Sophists. 
But to this teaching he set other and higher ends, 
not seeking to destroy belief in truth, but rather to 
show how truth might be acquired by a new intel- 
lectual process. His aim was not to minister to the 
selfishness of the age, but rather to rescue the age 
from selfishness and sloth, by teaching it what was 
truly good and useful ; not to undermine morality 
and piety, but to build them on a new foundation of 
knowledge. Thus Socrates was at once a moral and 
an intellectual reformer. His one great thought was 
how to transform and restore moral conduct by means 
of knowledge ; and these two elements were so closely 
associated together in his mind, that he could find 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



no other object for knowledge save human conduct, 
and no guarantee for conduct save in knowledge.' 
How great the services were which he rendered to both 
morality and science by this effort, how wholesome 
was the influence which he exercised on the intellec- 
tual condition of his people and of mankind generally, 
history attests. If in the sequel, the difference between 
morality and intellect was recognised quite as fully 
as their imity, yet the tie by which he connected 
them has never been broken; and if in the last 
centuries of the old world, philosophy took the place 
of the waning religion, giving a stay to morality, 
purifying and quickening the moral consciousness. 


* To revert to the question 
m )Oted above, as to whether 
he primarily regarded know- 
ledge as a means to moral 
action, or moral action as a 
result of knowledge, so much 
Inay be said: that his pecu- 
liarity consisted herein that 
for him this dilemma did 
not exist, that for him know- 
ledge as such was at once a 
moral need and a moral force, 
and that therefore virtue, as we 
shaU find, was neither a simple 
consequence of knowledge, nor 
an end to be attained by means 
of knowledge, but was directly 
and in itself knowledge. If, 
therefore, Labriola (Dottrina 
di Socrate, 40) describes the 
only inner motive of Socrates' 
. action as Hhe moral need of 
certainty, and the conviction 
that this is only attainable by 
a clear and indubitably certain 
knowledge,' his statement may 
be accepted as true. On the 

other hand, Ribbing's (Socrat. 
Studien, i. 46) view does not 
seem to carry conviction, 
that, according to both Plato 
and Xenophon, Socrates took 
in the first place a practical 
view of life, and that <the the- 
ory of knowledge was only 
developed by him for the sake 
of a practical purpose.' We 
have already seen that, accor- 
ding to Socrates, true know- 
ledge coincides with right in- 
tention. But, for the reasons 
set forth on p. 105, we cannot 
allow that knowledge with him 
has no independent value, and 
is only pursued as a means to 
a practical purpose ; which must 
be the view of Ribbing, in as 
far as he contradicts the one 
given above. Nor do the pas- 
sages quoted by Ribbing {Plato, 
Apol. 22, D. ; 28, D. ; 29, E. ; 
31, A. ; 38, A.) suggest this 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 




E, Tlie 
if the 
tlicory of 

this great and beneficial result, in as far as it can be 
assigned to any one individual, was due to the teach* 
ing of Socrates. 

The interest of philosophy being thus turned 
away from the outer world and directed towards man 
and his moral nature, and man only regarding things 
as true and binding of the truth of which he has 
convinced himself by intellectual research, there 
appears necessarily in Socrates a deeper importance 
attached to the personality of the thinker. In 
this modem writers have thought to discern the 
peculiar character of his philosophy.^ Very diflFerent, 
however, is the personal importance of the thinker 
with Socrates from the caprice of the Sophists, dif- 
ferent too from the extreme individualism of the 
post-Aristotelian schools. Socrates was aware, that 
each individual must seek the grounds of his own 
conviction for himself, that truth is not something 
given from without, but must be found by the exer-r 
cise of individual thought. He required all opinions 
to be examined anew, no matter how old or how 
common they were, proofs only and not authorities, 
claiming belief. Still, he was far from making man, 
as Protagoras did, the measure of all things. He 
did not even as the Stoics and Epicureans declare 
personal conviction and practical need to be the 
ultimate standard of truth, nor yet as the Sceptics, 
resolve all truth into probability ; but to him know- 
ledge was an end in itself; so too he was persuaded 

Hegel, Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 40 ; BM^oher, Aristoph., pp. 245, 388- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


that true knowledge could be obtained by a thought- Chap. 

ful consideration of things. Moreover he saw in man 
the proper object of philosophy, but instead of making 
of personal caprice a law, as the Sophists did, he 
subordinated caprice to the general law residing in the 
nature of things and of moral relations.^ Instead 
too of making, with later philosophers, the self-con- 
tentment of the wise man his highest end, he con- 
fined himself to the point of view of old Greek 
morality, which could not conceive of the individual 
apart from the community,^ and which accordingly 
regarded activity for the state as the first duty of a 
citizen,^ and the law of the state as the natural rule 
of conduct.^ Hence the Stoic apathy and indiflferenoe 
to country were entirely alien from Socrates. If it 
<5an be truly said ' that in him commences an un- 
bounded reference to the person, to the freedom of 
the inner life,' * it must also be added that this state- 
ment by no means exhausts the theory of Socrates. 
Thus the disputes as to whether the Socratic doctrine 
rests on a purely personal or a really independent 
basis ^ will have to be settled, by allowing indeed that, 
compared with former systems, his teaching exhibits 

f * Proofs may be found Xen, with which the previous re- 
Mem, ii. 2 ; ii. 6, 1-7 ; iii. 8, marks respecting the peculiar 
1-3 ; iv. 4, 20. conduct of the sage may be 

'^ Compare the conversation compared, 

with Aristippus, Xen, Mem. ii. * Hegely 1. c. 

1, 13 ; and Plato's Crito, 63, A. • C!ompare the views of BJot' 

■ It has been already seen sohevy 1. c, and Brandts for the 

that Socrates placed his own opposite view. * Ueber die 

activity under this point of vorgebliche Subjektivitat der 

view. See pp. 66, ^%\Xen» Mem. Sokrat. Lehre,' in Khein. Mus, 

i. 6, 15 ; Plato, Apol. 30, A. ii. 1, 86. 

* Mem. iv. 4, 12, and 3, 16, 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap, a deeper importance attaching to the personality of 
the thinker, without, however, by any means belonging^ 
to those which are purely relative. It aims at gaining^ 
a knowledge which shall do more than satisfy a per- 
sonal want, and which shall be true and desirable for 
more than the thinker ; but the ground on which it 
is sought is the personal thought ^ of the individual. 

This theory is indeed not further expanded by 
Socrates. He has established the principle, that only 
the knowledge which has to do with conceptions is 
true knowledge. To the further inference that only the 
being of conceptions is true being,^ and that there- 
fore only conceptions are true, and to a systematic 
exposition of conceptions true in themselves — so 
fer he never advanced. Knowledge is here something 
sought, a problem to be solved by the thinker ; philo- 
sophy is philosophic impulse, and philosophic method, 
a seeking for truth, not yet a possessing it ; and this 
deficiency countenances the view that the platform 

' Hegel says, nothing very but the universal element 

different, when in distinguish- which is found running through 

ing (Gesch. d, Phil. ii. 40, 166) all individuals. With this view 

Socrates from the Sophists he agree also Matsch&f^ 1. c. p. 246, 

says : * in Socrates the creation 392, and Seimann, Gesch. und 

of thought is at once clad with Syst. des Plat. i. 239. 

an independent existence of its * The objections of Albertif. 

own,' and what is purely per- Sokr. 94, to the above vanish 

sonal is * externalised and made if the word *only * is properly 

universal by him as the good.' emphasised. He only asserts 

Socrates is said to have substi- what is already well know% 

tuted < thinking man is the that Socrates did not develops 

measure of all things,' in place his theory of conceptions to the 

of the Sophistic doctrine * man theory of ideas, nor contrast 

is the measure of all things.' the universal thought in the 

In a word, his leading thought conception, as being the only 

is not the individual as he thing truly real with individu^ 

knows himself experimentally, things. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


of Socrates was that of a narrow reference to the Chap. 
person. Still it should never be forgotten, that the ' 

aim of Socrates was always to discover and set forth 
that which is in itself true and good. Mankind is to be 
intellectually and morally educated, but the one and 
only means thereto is to attain a knowledge of truth. 
The primary aim of Socrates being to train men 
to think, rather than to construct a system, the main 
point with him was a philosophic method to deter- 
mine the way which would lead to truth. The sub- 
stance of his teaching thus appears to have been 
partly confined to questions having an immediate 
bearing on human conduct ; partly it does not go 
beyond the general and theoretical demand, that all 
action should be determined by a knowledge of con- 
ceptions. There is no systematic development of 
individual points of morality and no attempt to give 
a reason for them. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Chap. The peculiarity of the method pursued by Socrates 
consists, generally speaking, in deducing conceptions 

from the common opinions of men. Beyond the 
formation of conceptions, however, and the intellec- 
tual exercise of individuals his method did not go ; 
nor is there any systematic treatment of the concep- 
tions gained. The theory of a knowledge of concep- 
tions appearing here as a claim, the consciousness 
of its necessity must be presupposed as existing, and 
an insight into the essence of things be sought. At 
the same time, thought does not advance further 
than this seeking. It has not the power to develope 
to a system of absolute knowledge, nor has it a 
method sufficiently matured to form a system. For 
the same reason, the process of induction is not 
reduced within clearly defined rules. All that 
Socrates has clearly expressed is the general postu- 
late, that every thing must be reduced to its concep- 
tion. Further details as to the mode and manner of 
this reduction and its strict logical forms, were not 
yet worked out by him into a science, but were 
applied by him practically by dint of individual skill. 
The only thing about him at all resembling a logical 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



rule, the maxim that the process of critical enquiry 
must always confine itself to what is universally 
admitted,* sounds far too indefinite to invalidate our 

This process involves three particular steps. The 
first is the Socratic knowledge of self. Holding as he 
did that only the knowledge of conceptions constitutes 
true knowledge, Socrates was fain to look at all sup- 
posed knowledge, asking whether it agreed with his 
idea of knowledge, or not. Nothing appeared to him 
more perverse, nothing more obstructive to true 
knowledge from the very outset, than the belief that 
you know what you do not know..* Nothing is so 
necessary as self-eicamination, to show what we really 
know and what we only think we know.^ Nothing, 
too, is more indispensable for practical relations 


A. 27ie 
of self, re- 
isuUliig in 
a knaW' 
ledge of not 

* Mem. iv. 6, 15 : ^ir^ Zl 
ahrSs rt r^ KSytfi 8ic|(oi, Hih rwp 
ftdXMrra dfioKoyovfxdpw iiropfiero, 


* Xen. Mem. iii. 9, 6 : fxcufiw 
>« fiiiy ipatnloy fi^v 1^ tlvai ao' 
^^9, ov fi4yroi ye t^v iLytmai"mio- 
ffitniv ftayiay iv6fuC€r. rh 9k 
iiyyoeiu iavrhy «cal & fii} oVi€ 
io(idi(€iy re Koi ottaBcu yiyy^ta-KeiVf 
^yyvrdrfo fiaylas i\oyl(ero fjycu. 
Generally speaking, those are 
called mad who are mistaken 
about what is commonly known, 
not those who are mistaken 
about things of which most men 
are ignorant. Also Plato, Apol. 
29y B. : ical rovro vus oIk itfioBla 
itrrly lUhri if ivoytiSitrros, ri rov 

' In this sense Socrates, 

speaking in Plato, Apol. 21, B., 
says that according to the 
oracle he had interrogated all 
with whom he was brought 
into contact, to discover whe- 
ther they had any kind of know- 
ledge ; and that in all cases he 
had found along with some kind 
of knowledge an ignorance, 
which he would not take in ex- 
change for any kind of know- 
ledge — an opinion that they 
knew what they did not know. 
On the other hand, he considered 
it to be his vocation, ipiKoaoi^vy' 
ra (yy kcU 4^€rd(oy7a ifiavrhy K<d 
rohs' HxXjovs (28, E.) ; and he 
says elsewhere (38, A.) that 
there could be no higher good, 
than to converse every day as 
he did : & Hk ity^^ircurros $los ob 
filorrhs Mpt&vtp. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




than to become acquainted with the state of our inner 
self, with the extent of our knowledge and capacities, 
with our defects and requirements.^ One result of 
this self-examination being the discovery that the 
actual knowledge of the philosopher does not corre- 
spond with his idea of knowledge, there follows 
further that consciousness of knowing nothing, which 
Socrates declared to be his only' knowledge. For any 
other knowledge he denied possessing,^ and therefore 
refused to be the teacher of his friends,^ only wishing. 

* Xeiwplumy Mem. iv. 2, 24, 
enquiring into the Delphic 
yvSa^i cr€ouT(J>', says that self- 
knowledge is attended with 
the greatest advantages, want 
of it with the greatest disad- 
vantages : ol ^v yh,p tl^dres 
iavTohs rd t€ iviriiBcia kamoTs 
iarA<n koX Ziofyi-^vdnTKowriv S. re 
Sivoa^ou Kcd & fiii' Koi & fikv 
hriffravTCu trpdrrovres (self- 
examination always refers in 
the first place to knowledge, 
because with knowledge right 
action is given) vopl^ovrai re 
&p ZiovTou KaX eZ trpdrrovinv. 
See also Plato, Phaedrus, 229, 
E. ; he had not time to give 
to the explanation of myths of 
which others were so fond, not 
being even able to know him- 
self according to the Delphic 
oracle ; Symp. 216, A. ; when 
Alcibiades complains : avay- 
Kd(u ydp fie dfxoXoyelv, 8ti iroA.- 
\ov ivBei)s &v ainbs In ^/xau- 
rov fihp a/icAw, rh 8' *hBr\vaifav 

2 Plato, Apol. 21, B. : iy^ 
yiip 5^) oire fiiya oUre fffiucphu 
ff^i^oi^a ijMnvr^ 0-o<^^$ &v, — 21, 
D. : roirov fx^v rov avQp<lrnou 4yit 
<ro^^€p6i ci/ii* icivS vfct^et /iiv yap 

rifiav oMrepos ouS^y Kd}<jby k&to* 
Ohv ci5€vai, &A.X' offTOS fihy oivrai 
ri eldevcu oIk cl$cis, 4yia 5^ &cnr€f^ 
olv ohKolZa, oMoiofiou, — 23, B. : 
otros vjji&Vy S> &v0pwiroi^ a-o<f)(&Tarr6s 
iffTiyf bffris, SxTKep ^KpdrriSf 
fyyuKCV^ ^Ti oi^evhs &^t6s iffri rp 
itXfiBeiq. vphs ffoiptav. And a 
little before : rh di Ktv$vi/ct;«t, &. 
&y^p€s 'Adrivaioi, r^ ivTi & Ocbs 
ffopbs eiyau, koX 4y r^ XP^<^/^ 
roOr<p Tovro \4yfiy^ 3t* ri h»BpW' 
irirn a'0(f>ia &Klyou riyhs &|£a 
iffrl ical oifd€y6s. — Symp. 216,- 
D. : irfyofi irdyra icoi oiiS^y olScy, 
&s rh ffXVfJM avrov, — Theaetet. 
160, C. ; &yoy6s ct/xt ero^/as, koX 
Hrep li^ri iroWoi [xoi uyelSurcty, &s 
rohs fx^y &\Xovs 4pwr&y ainoi 8^ 
ohh^y kvoKpivofMix irepl ovSevbs 8t^ 
rh firid^y Ix"" (^o<f>6y, &\7i$k5 oi/€i- 
tlCowrt' rh Sk airioy rourou t<J8€* 
fMieitadai fie d Oeh^ kyceyKdiei, 
yeyy^y $c iLveKd^Kvffey, Gomp. 
Rep. i. 337, E. ; Men. 98, B. 
That this trait in Plato has 
been taken from the Socrates 
of history, may be gathered' 
from the Platonic dialogues, in 
which his teacher is by no- 
means represented as so igno- 
" See above, p* 67. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


in common with them, to learn and enquire.^ This Chap. 
confession of his ignorance was certainly far from ^ 
being a sceptical denial of knowledge,^ with which 
the whole philosophic career of Socrates would be . 
irreconcilable. On the contrary, it contains a simple 
avowal as to his own personal state, and collaterally 
as to the state of those whose knowledge he had had 
the opportunity of testing,* Nor again must it be 
regarded as mere irony or exaggerated modesty/ 
Socrates really knew nothing, or to express it other- 
wise, he had no developed theory, and no positive 
dogmatic principles. The demand for a knowledge 
of conceptions having once dawned upon him in all 
its fulness, he missed the marks of true knowledge in 
all that hitherto passed for wisdom and knowledge. 
Being, however, also the first to make this demand, 
he had as yet attained no definite content for know- 
ledge. The idea of knowledge was to him an 
unfathomable problem, in the face of which he could 
not but be conscious of his ignprance.* And in so fai* 
a certain afl&nity between his view and the sophistic 

* Koipy $ov\€{f€a-daif Koivp oKi- the limited cha/racter of human 

irr^aBcu, Koivy (nrsiv, ffi^ir^tivy knowledge being asserted in 

&c. Xen,y Mem. iv. 6, 12 ; 6, comparison with the divine. 
1 ; FlatOy Theaet. 161, E. ; Prot. * As Grate remarks (Plato, i. 

330, B. ; Gorg. 606. E. ; Crat. 270, 323), referring to At-ist, 

384, B. ; Meno, 89 E. Soph. El. 34, 183, b, 7 : ^wcl 

2 As the New Academicians koI $i& toOto ^updriis ^/><6ra, 

would have it, Cic, Acad. i. 12, dAX* ohK av^Kpivero- &fio\6y€i yhp 

44 ; ii. 23, 74. oCk el8«Voi. Conf . Plato, Rep. 

" The already quoted Ian- 337. 
guage of the Apology, 23, A., ^ Compare Hegel, Gesch. d. 

does not contradict this ; the I*hil. ii. 64 ; Hermann, Plato, 

pomhiUty of knowledge not 326. 
being there denied, but only 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


£Jhap. scepticism may be observed. In as far as it denied 
• the possibiKty of all knowledge, Socrates opposed this 
scepticism, whilst agreeing with it in as far as it re- 
ferred to previous philosophy. Natural philosophers, 
he believed, transcended in their enquiries the limits 
of human knowledge. A clear proof of this fact is 
that they are at variance with one another respecting 
the most important questions. Some hold being to 
be one, others make of it a boundless variety ; some 
teach that everything, others that nothing, is subject 
to motion ; some that all things, others that nothing 
comes into being or perishes.* Just as the Sophists 
destroyed the conflicting statements of the natural 
philosophers by means of each other, so Socrates 
infers from the contest of systems, that no one of 
them is in possession of the truth. Their great dif- 
ference consists herein, the Sophists making Not- 
knowing into a principle, and considering the highest 
wisdom to consist in doubting everything ; Socrates 
adhering to his demand for knowledge, telinging to the 
belief in its possibility, consequently regarding igno- • 
ranee aS the greatest evil. 
B. The Such being the importance of the Socratic Not- 

tea/rehfor knowing, it involves in itself a demand for enlighten- 
krufwledge, °' ^ ^ 

Sifting of ment ; the knowledge of ignorance leads to a search 
his felhnv- 

men. Bros ,-«-,, • ^ lo < « i n n x ^ * 

€Lnd irony. ■^^'*' ■™-®^' ^- 1> 1^» ^*y^ '"'®** ebp^w • <irei koX tous fieyt- 

^' that Socrates did not busy aroy (f>poyovvras in\ ry ircpi roi- 

himself with questions of ruv \4ytiv ov ravrik bo^dfeiv 

natural science, but on the &AX^Xo(s, kWk to7s fiaivofievois 

contrary he held those who dfiolws BioKfiffeai irphs &Xxi^Aov5* 

did to be foolish ; iSaifiaC^ 5' then follows what is quoted in 

cl n^ <pcafephy avrois 4<my^ Uri the text. 
ravra ov BvyaT6v icriv hvBpd»- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



for true knowledge. The consciousness of our own CfHAp, 
Not-knowing continuing, and the philosopher having 
an idea of knowledge without finding it realised in 
himself, the search for knowledge naturally assumes 
the form of an application to others, with a view of 
ascertaining whether the knowledge wanting at home 
is to be found with them.* Hence the necessity of 
enquiry in common by means of the dialogue.^ For 
Socrates, this mode of intercourse has not merely an 
educational value, procuring easier access and a more 
fruitful effect for his ideas, but it is to his mind 
an indispensable condition of the development of 
thought, and one from which the Socrates of history 
never departs.^ Speaking more accurately, its nature 
consists in a sifting of men such as it is described in 
the Apology,* or in a bringing to the birth, as it is 
called in the Thesetetus ; ^ in other words, the philo- 
sopher by his questions obliges others to unfold their 
inner self before him : ^ he asks after their real 

' The connection is very ap- irpotniKoia'cus Trpi^tciy avrohs ttvat 
parent in the Apol. 21, B., if ^ireftcActro : and the • enquiry- 
only the inner thought of the into human nature has this 
philosophy of Socrates is put meaning in Mem. iii. 6 ; iv. 2 ; 
in the place of the oracular but clearly this is not its origi- 
response. nal object. 

2 Compare p. 123, 2. * See p. 149 ; 122, 2. 

» CJompare, besides the Me- • Plato, Lach. 187, E ; he 

morabilisk,; Plato, Apol. 24, C. ; who enters into conversation 

Protag. 336, B., 336, B. Theaet. with Socrates fnh ira^eo-eot iirJ^ 

1. c. toi5tow trtpieeySfAtyoy ry \^(p, 

* Similarly Xen, Mem. iv. irplv t» i/miffti tis rh BiBSvcu irepl 

7, 1 : Trdmuu fi^y yhp iv iyig o28o a^ov \6yoy, tyriya rp6iFov vvy re 

ftdXurra l/ttcXcy ahr^ €iS4y<Uy Zrov ^, nor is there any escape 

ris iirurr4ifi»y eft| r&v ffvySyrwy from the most thorough /3a- 

tibr^. Xenophon only took it ffctylC^ffBai, 
to prove Jti aUrrdpK^is iv rats 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, opinions, after the reasons of their beliefs and actions, 

and in this way attempts by an interrogatory analysis 

of their notions to bring out the thought latent 
therein, of which they are themselves unconscious J 
In as far as this process presupposes that the know-r 
ledge which the questioner lacks may be found in 
others, it resembles an impulse to supplement one's 
own defects by their help. This intercourse with 
others is, for a philosopher with whom knowing coin- 
oides with purposing, not only an intellectual but^Eo" 
a moral and personal need. To enquire in c ommon 
is at once to live in common. Love of knowledge is 
at once impulse to friendship, and in the blending 
together of these two sides consists the peculiarity of 
the Socratic Eros.^ 

In as far as others do not possess the knowledge 
sought for, and the questions of Socrates only serve to 
expose their ignorance, the process bears also the 
character of irony. Irony, however, must not be 
understood to be merely a conversational trick ;^ still 

' It is assumed as a matter spiritual and the disadvantaopes 

of course, that every one can of a sensual love are unfolded, 

p:ive an account of what he apparently (as a careful survey 

knows and is, Plato, 1. c. 190, C. ; of the Platonic Symposion will 

Charm. 158, E. show) by Xenophon, speaking 

* See above, p. 75. Besides for himself, but undoubtedly 

Brandis ii. a, 64, reminds us following in the train of So- 

with justice that treatises on crates. Even ^schines and 

ipMS are mentioned not only by Cebes had treated of tpws in 

Plato and Xenophon, but also the Socratic sense. See Plat, 

>)y Euclid, Crito, Simmias, and Puer. Ed. c. 15, p. 11, and the 

>\ntisthenes, which shows the fragrment of -^schines in AriS' 

importance of it for the So- tid. Or. xlv. p. 34. 

cratic schools. The chief pas- ' ITegel, Gesch. d. Phil, ii, 

sage is in Xenophon, Symp. c. 53, 57 ; Conf. ArUt, Eth. iv. 

^, where the advantages of a 13 ; 1 127, b, 22. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



less is it that derisive condescension or affected sim- 
plicity, which as it were lures others on to the ice in 
order to laugh at their falls ; or that absolute refer- 
ence to the person and destruction of all general 
truth, which for a time bore this name in the 
romantic school. Its proper nature consists rather 
herein, that without any positive knowledge, and 
prompted only by a desire for knowledge, Socrates 
addresses himself to others, in the hope of learning 
firom them what they know, but that in the attempt 
to discover it, upon a critical analysis of their no- 
tions, even^ their supposed knowledge vanishes. This 


* Plato at least gives this 
deeper meaning to the irony of 
Socrates. See Rep. i. 337, A. : 
c!&Ti\ iK€lpri ri eicodvia tlpcevela 
^uKpdrovSf Koi tovt' iyin ^9f} re 
ira} ToWois trpoHKryov, tri ah 
hroKpivcurBai fjiy otiK iBtK-fitroiSy 
cipwrcvcroto 8^ xal vdvra /xaXXov 
"woffiaois fl kiroKpivoio cf ris ri ae 
ifuT^. And ao;ain, 337, E. : 
Iva :Zo9icpdrris rh tlwBhs ^icarpd^- 
i/rax, ai^hs fikv fi^ inroKpiinfrai, 
tiKXov 8^ inroKpivofi4voy Kofifidyfi 
xSyoy icol iX^yxfl' to which So- 
crates replies : ir&s yiip ^y . , , 
ris iiroKpiycuro vp&rov yXv fi^ ctli^s 
fiifi^ ^iffKoty €iUvoUy &c. Symp. 
216, £. : €lpoivev6aevos 5^ jcai 
irtdiiȴ irdyra rhv $lov irphs robs 
Mp^ovs StarcXcT, which, as 
the context shows, refers partly 
to the fact that Socrates pre- 
tended to be in love, without 
being so in the Greek sense of 
the term, and partly to the 
words kyyw iravra koL ohZhv 
oZScir. The same, omitting the 
word ffZfwvfffo, is said in the 
passage of the Theaetetus al- 

ready mentioned, and in the 
Meno, 80, A. : ovt^ev HWo % ah76s 
Tc &iropcis Kol rohs &KKovi iroicts 
kvopeivy and also in the Apol. 
23. E., in which, after the 
Socratic sifting of others has 
been described, it goes on to 
say : ^k Tovrijo'i 8^ t^j i^^rJutr^vs 
iroXXoi ti^y iLv4xB€iod fioi yey Syouri 
, . . 6yoiJLa B^ rovro . . . ao^phs 
flycu, oioyrai ydp /i€ iKdtrrore ol 
irap6yr€S Tavra ahrhy tlyai ffoiphy 
ft hy iXXoy i^€\4y^a>. Likewise 
Xenophon, Mem. iv. 4, 10 : 5ti 
rSy &K\mv Karay4\(^s, ipwrSv 
fx^v Kai i\4yxuy 'rdyras, a^hs 8i 
ovSeyl 94\tav vw4xfiy \6rfOV ohJi\ 
yydtfJL'Hv iiwoiptdveirBcu wtpl ollBey6s. 
Ibid. 11. Conf. i. 2, 36: hXXd 
roi a6 7c, & 'Zt&Kparfff etiwtfos 
elB^s ir&s ^x** ''"^ vXturra ipwrav. 
Hence Quintilian, ix. 2, 46, 
observes that the whole life of 
Socrates seemed an irony, be- 
cause he always played the 
part of an admirer of the 
wisdom of others. Connected 
with this is the use which 
Socrates made of irony as a 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




C. The 

of concept 
tion» and 
ilw metlwd 

irony is, therefore, speaking generally, the dialectical 
or the critical factor in the Socratic method, assum-- 
ing the peculiar form it here does owing to the presup- 
posed ignorance of him who uses it for his instrument. 
Doubtless, however conscious Socrates might be of 
possessing no real knowledge, he must at least have 
believed that he possessed the notion and the method 
of true knowledge. Without this conviction he 
would neither have been able to confess his own igno- 
rance, nor to expose that of others, both being only 
rendered possible by comparing the knowledge he 
found with the idea of knowledge residing within 
himself. The fact that this idea was no where to be 
found realised was in itself a challenge to him to set 
about realising it; and hence resulted as the third point 
in his philosophic course the attempt to create real 
knowledge. For real knowledge he could only allow 
that to pass which emanated from the conception of 
a thing, hence the first step here is the formation of 
conceptions or induction.^ For even if Socrates does 
not always make for formal definitions, he at least 
always seeks sonte universal quality applicable to the 
conception and to the essence of the object, in order 
to settle the question under notice by referring the 
particular case to this universal quality.* The class- 

figure of speech. Conf . Plat. 
Gorg. 489, E. ; Symp. 218, D. : 
Xen, Mem. iv. 2. Only its 
meaning mnst not be limited 
to this. Compare also Her- 
mann. Plat. 242, 326, and par- 
ticularly ScJileiej-macIiery Gesch. 
d. Phil. 83, and for the use of 

the word also Zeop. Schmidt 
in Ind. Lection, Marbui^, 1873.. 
* Compare the remarks of 
Anstotle already mentioned, 
p. 110, 2. 

xdma rhv \6yoVf See p, 110, 2^ 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


quality is therefore to bim of the greatest import- ^(^hap. 
«.nce. _____ 

The starting point for this induction is suppKed 
hy the commonest notions. He begins with examples 
taken from daily life, with well-known and generally 
juimitted truths. On every disputed point he goes 
back to such instances, and hopes in this way to 
attain a universal agreement.* AU previous science 
being doubtful, nothing remains but to begin anew 
with the simplest experiences. On the other hand, 
induction has not as yet so far advanced as to mean the 
deriving conceptions from an exhaustive and critically 
tested series of observations. This is a later require- 
ment due partly to Aristotle, and partly to more 
modem philosophy. The wider basis of a compre- 
hensive knowledge of facts being as yet wanting, nay, 
€ven being despised, and Socrates being in the 
habit of expanding his thoughts in personal conversa- 
tion with distinct reference to the case before him 
and to the capacity and needs of his fellow-speakers, 
he is confined to the assumptions which the circum- 
stances and his own limited experience supply ; he 
must take isolated notions and admissions as his 
point of departure, and can only go as far as others 
can follow. Hence in most cases he relies more on par- 
ticular instances than on an exhaustive analysis of 

* Compare what has been McrapMi, fifioia roinois hriitucphi 

qaoted, pp. 80, 2 ; 121, 1, and & ovk Mtu^ov iiriarwrecu, ikvaxtl- 

the whole of the Memorabilia. Otis, olfuu &s koI ravra Mtrrafiai. 

Plato» too, gives instances of As to the principle that from 

this procedure. See Xen, (Ec. the less you proceed to an un- 

19, 15 : ^ ip^^ffts ZiZaffKctKla derstanding of the more im- 

40r\¥ . . . &ynf ydp fi9 8i* &y iyia portant, see Plato, Gtorg. 947, C. 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap, experience.* This chance element in his principles 
he, however, endeavours tx) eliminate by coUecting^ 
opposite instances, so as to correct and supplement 
varying experiences by one another. The question^ 
for instance, before him being the conception of in- 
justice : He is unjust, says Euthydemus, who lies, 
deceives, robs, and such like. Yet, rejoins Socrates^ 
it is right to lie, to deceive, and to rob an enemy. 
Accordingly the conception must be more accurately 
defined thus: He is unjust who does such things 
to his friends. Even such action is, however, per- 
mitted under circimistances. A general is not unjust 
when he encourages his army by a lie, nor a father 
who gives his son medicine by deception, nor a friend 
who robs his friend of the weapon with which he 
would have committed suicide. We must, there- 
fore, introduce a further limitation. Unjust is he 
who deceives or robs his friends in order to do them 
harm.^ Or the conception of a ruler has to be dis- 
covered. G-eneral opinion regards a ruler as one who 
has the power to give orders. But this power, 
Socrates shows, is conceded only to the steersman on 
board ship, only to the physician in case of sick- 
ness, and in every other case only to those conversant 
with the special subject. Only he, therefore, is a 
ruler who possesses the knowledge necessary for 
ruling.' Or it must be determined what belongs to 
a good suit of armour. The smith says, it must ber 

> As for example in the com- ■ ' Mem. iv. 2, 11. 
parison of the politician with * Tbid» iii. 9, 10. 
the physician, pilot, &c. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


of a proper size. But suppose the man intending to Chap. 
wear it is deformed. Why then, the answer is, it ^^' 
must be of the proper size for his deformity. It 
therefore has the proper size when it fits. But now, 
supposing a man wishes to move, must the armour 
fit exactly ? Not so, or he would be hampered in 
his movements. We must, therefore, imderstand by 
fitting what, is comfortable for use.* In a similar 
way we see Socrates analysing thoroughly the com- 
mon notions of his friends. He reminds them of the 
various sides to every question ; he brings out the 
opposition which every notion contains either within 
itself or in relation /to some other: and he aims at 
correcting, by addi^onal observations^ assumptions 
resting on a one-sided experience, at completing 
them, and giving to them a more careful definition. 
By this process you arrive at what belongs to the 
essence of every object, and what does not ; thus con- 
ceptions are formed from notions. 
• For the purpose of proof, too, the class-qualities 
of conceptions are also the most important things. 
In order to investigate the correctness of a quality 
or the necessity of a course of action, Socrates falls 
back on the conception of the thing to which it 
reffers ; ^ and therefrom deduces what applies to the 
given case.^ As in seeking conceptions he always 

• Mem. iii. 10, 9. then shows that his conduct 
' 1. o. iv. 6, B. falls under this conception ; in 

* For instance, in order to order to- put his duties before 
reprove Lamprocles for his con- a commander of cayahry, be 
duct to Xanthippe, he first begins (Mem. iii, 3, 2) by 
(Mem. ii. 1) lets him give a stating what is his employment^ 
definition of ingratitude, and and enumerating its different 

K 2 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, progresses jfrom what is known and universally ad- 


mitted,^ so, too, he does here. Hence his method of 
proof takes the most varied tums,^ according as it 
starts from one or another point of departure. He 
allows a general principle to be taken for granted, 
and includes imder it the particular case ; ' he refutes 
foreign assertions by bringing home to them contra- 
dictions with themselves or with other undoubted 
assumptions or facts ; * he builds up the premisses 
from which he deduces his conclusions by means of 
induction, or concludes straight off by an apparent 
analogy.^ A theory of this method of proof he has 
not given, nor distinguished the various kinds of 
proof. The essential point about it is only this, that 
everything is measured and decided by conceptions.' 
To find the turns by which this end is reached is 
a matter of personal critical dexterity. Aristotle, 
therefore, in making the chief merit of Socrates from 
this side consist in the formation of conceptions and 
in induction,* must on the whole be allowed to be 

Asking further as to the objects on which Socrates 
practised his method, we encounter in the Memora- 
bilia of Xenophon a motley array of materials — in- 

parts ; in order to prove the * See above, pp. 131 ; 121, 1. 

being of the Gods, he begins ' CJonf. Schwbglery (Jesch. d.' 

with the general principle that Griech. Phil., 2 Aufl., p. 121. 

all that serves an end must " As in the cases quoted on 

have an intelligent cause p. 131, 3. 

(Mem. i. 4, 4) ; in order to * For instance, Mem. i. 2, 34 

determine which of two is the and 36 ; iv. 2, 31 ; 4, 7. 

better citizen, he first enquires ^ Mem. iv. 2, 22 ; iv, 4, 14 ; 

into the peculiar features of a i. 2, 32. 

good citizen (iv. 6, 14). * See p. 110, 2. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



vestigations into the essence of virtue, the duties of Chap. 

man, the existence of Gods, disputes with Sophists, \ 

advice of the most varied kind given to friends and 
acquaintances, conversations with generals as to the 
responsibilities of their ofiGice, with artificers and 
tradesmen as to their arts, even with loose women as 
to their_mode of lif e. Nothing is too small to arouse 
the curiosity of the philosophy and to call for a 
thorough and methodical examination. As Plato at 
a later time found in all things without exception 
essential conceptions, so, too, Socrates, purely in the 
interest of knowledge, even where no educational 
or other good was apparent, referred everything to 
its conception.* He looked upon the life and pur- 
suits of man as the real object of his enquiries, and 
other things only in as far as they affected the con- 
ditions and problems of human life. Hence his 
philosophy, which in point of scientific form was a 
criticism of what is {ivaKsKTueri), became in its actual 
application a science of human actions {ridiicri). 

> See p 109 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Chap, Socratbs, says Xenophon,* did not discourse coneem- 
^^^ ing the nature of the All, like most other philosophers 

A. Frnida- before him ; he did not enquire into the essence of 
^l^^io^^f^ the world and the laws of natural phenomena ; on 
the sub' the contrary, he declared it folly to search into such 
ter to subjects ; for it is unreasonable to quiz things divine 
Ethics, before fully understanding things human ; besides, 
the conflicting opinions of natural philosophers prove 
that the object of their research transcends the capa- 
city of human knowledge. After all, these enquiries 
axe of no practical use. Quite in keeping with this 
view, the Socrates of Xenophon tests even geometry 
and astronomy ^ by the standard of immediate utility, 
as being the knowledge respectively requisite for 
surveying and navigation. To carry them further 
than this he considers to be a useless waste of time, 
or even impious ; for man can never come upon the 
track of the mighty works of the Grods, nor do the 
Gods desire that he should attempt such knowledge. 

> Mem. i. 1, 11. Conf. p. 124, 1. « Ibid. iv. 7. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Hence in all such attempts, extravagances such as 
those of Anaxagoras are sure to come to view.* 

The accuracy of this description of Socrates has, 
however, not passed unchallenged by modem writers.^ 
<jranting, it is said, that Socrates really expressed 
these and similar sentiments, can they be right- 
fully so imderstood as though he would altogether 
"deprecate speculative enquiry into nature ? Would 
not such an assertion too manifestly contradict his 
own fundamental view, the idea of the oneness of all 
knowledge ? Would it not lead, if propounded as 
Xenoplion has done, to consequences manifest ly un- 
reasonable? Even Plato ^ bears testimony fo the 
fact that Socrates did not attack natural science in 
itself, but only the ordinary treatment of it ; nor can 
Xenophon himself conceal the fact that he did devote 
his attention to nature,* hoping by considering the 



' Mem. iv. 7, 6 : 8x«j W r&v 
4thpa9flwy, f Ifcaora 6 6ehs firi- 
%Q»wrai^ ^povTurr^y yiyvcadai 
•iLTdrp^nw bi^€ ykp e^ptrh it,y- 
0p4fwoi5 avT& 4y6fii(€v cTvoi, otht 
^api(€(rBcu Otois tiy iiywro rhy 
{ffrovvra ft iKeiyoi traupriyiarcu oitK 
ifiovXiiBriaav. Such subtleties 
only lead to absurdities, oWiv 
^^rroy ^ 'Aya^aySpas Tcip9<pp6yriir€v 
4 fjLiyuT7oy <ppoy^<ras M r^ rii,s 
'T&y 6€&y ijLfixay^ ^^rtytiaBai — 
which is then supported by 
various remarks proving the 
extravagance of the notion that 
the sun is a fiery stone. 

• SeMeiermacher, Werke, iii. 
2, 305-307 ; Gesch. d. Phil., p. 
33 ; BnmdUj Bhein. Mus. i. 2, 
130 ; Gr.-B6m. Phil. ii. a, 34 ; 
Bitter^ Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 48, 

64 ; Suvem, Ueber die Wolken 
des Aristophanes, p. 11 ; 
Krischey Forsch. 106; Alberti, 
Sokr. 93, 98, likewise gives a 
partial adherence to this view : 
it might have been expected 
to go further after what has 
been said, p. 49, 2. 

» Phaedo, 96, A. ; 97, B. ; Rep. 
vii. 529, A. ; Phileb. 28, D. ; 
Leg. xii. 966, B. 

* Mem. i. 4 ; iv. 3. No argu- 
ment can be drawn from Mem. 
i. 6, 14 : robs Oiiircwpohs r&y 
wd\cu <ro^y iiyBp&y, ots iK€wot 
KOfriXi-Koy iy fitfi?dois ypdrjfayrts, 
iiyeKlrrwy Koiyf ahy rots (plkots 
^Upxofieu, for these troipol need 
not necessarily be the earlier 
natural philosophers. :So^l is 
also used of poets, chroniclers, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, relations of means to ends in nature to gain an in- 

- - sight into its reasonable arrangement. Allowing^ 

therefore, that Socrates, as was the fact, had no 
special talent for natural science, and hence did not 
study it to any great extent, at least the germ of a new 
form of this science may be discovered in him. lu 
his notion of the relation of means to ends in 
nature must have lain ' the thought of a imiversat 
diflfusion of intelligence throughout the whole of 
natinre,' ' the theory of an absolute harmony of man 
and nature, and of man's occupying such a position 
in nature as to be a micrqcosm of the world.' ^ If he 
stopped at the germ, confining his study of nature ta 
mere practical requirements, this must have been, ac- 
cording to his own opinion, only as a preliminary step* 
He must have only intended that man ought not to 
reach into the distance until a critical foundation? 
has been securely laid in the depths of his own inner 
life ; or else it must have reference to popular and 
not to philosophical study .^ 

Unfortunately this view of modem writers rests 
on assumptions which cannot be supported. In the 
first place, not only Xenophon, but Aristotle also,* not 
to mention later writers,* asserts that Socrates never 

&c., and it is expressly stated ' Met. i. 6 (987, b, 1) ^ 

that Socrates perused their ^icpdrovs l\ ircpl fxlv th ^Buih 

works, in order to find in them 'irparYfjLar€vofi4vov, irfpl Hh ri^s^ 

what was morally useful for 8\tjs tpicews ovB4v. xiii. 4^ 

himself and his friends. De Part. Anim. i. 1 (642, a, 28) : 

' Schleiermacher and Ritter, hrX JUoKpdrovs 5i rovro fjiiv [rb 

* Krische, 208, as though dpiaraadai tV oinriav'] ril^Bfif r^ 

Socrates made any distinction 84 Cnretv ri trtpi ^icr^w^ ^\i}{c. 

between training for a philoso- Conf . Eth. Eud. i. 5 ; 1216, b, 2. 

pher and training for a good * Oi€. Tus. v. 4, 10; Acad» 

man. i. 4, 15 ; iv. 29, 123 ; De Fin, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



pursued the study of nature. Aristotle is, however, Chap. 
the very authority called in to arbitrate when Xeno- 
phon and Plato differ. What right have we, then, 
to stand aghast at his testimony as soon as he 
declares against Plato ? Even Plato, however, indi- 
rectly admits in the Timaeus that natural science 
was foreign to Socrates. If he elsewhere puts in 
his mouth sayings referring to nature, there is still 
no evidence that these utterances are historically 
true. Not even in the passage in the Phsedo can 
such evidence be found, unless what follows — that 
Socrates had fallen back on the theory of Ideas — 
can be taken to be historical.^ In one respect Xeno- 
phon fully agrees with Plato, in saying that Socrates 
demanded a consideration of the relation of means to 
ends in nature. If it is further required that the 
relation of means to ends should not be understood 
in the lower sense of a later age, in which it was indeed 
understood by Xenophon, but that higher speculative 
ideas should be sought therein, where, we ask, is the 
historical justification of this view ? Lastly, if an 
appeal is made to the logical consequences of the 
Socratic theory, do they not prove that Socrates must 
have been quite in earnest in disparaging a specula- 
tive study of nature, and in his popular notion of the 
relation of means to ends ? Had he indeed placed 
at the head of his system, in this explicit form, the 
idea of the mutual dependence of all knowledge, it 

V. 29, 87 ; Rep. i. 10 ; Senec. cording to Demetrius of By- 
Kp. 71,7; Sext. Math. vii. 8; zantimn, i>i<)^. ii. 21. 
(jfeU, N. A. xiv. 6, 5, and, ac- » Phaedo, 100, B. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





would be impossible to account for his low estimate 
of physics. If, on the contrary, he was (Concerned, 
not about knowledge in general, but about the edu- 
cation and training of men by means of knowledge, 
is it not very natural that his enquiries should be 
exclusively directed to the conditions and activities 
of man,^ nature being only taken into account in as 
far as it was useful to man ? Doubtless this view of 
the relation of means to ends was, for natural and 
scientific enquiries, like a seed sown broadcast, which 
sprang up and bore fruit in the systems of Plato and 
Aristotle ; but to Socrates himself this new depart-^ 
ment of natural science presented itself only as a 
subsidiary branch of ethical enquiry, without his 

* In this respect Socrates is 
like Kant, Kant's position in 
history being also not unlike 
his. As Kant, after destroying 
the older Metaphysics, only 
retained Ethics, so Socrates, 
after setting aside natural 
science, turned his attention 
exclusively to morals. In the 
one case, as in the other, the 
one-sidedness with which the' 
founder begins has been sup-j, 
plemented by the disciples, and, 
the treatment at first adopted , 
for Ethics has been extended'.! 
to the whole of philosophy. 
Just as it may be said of 
Socrates, that, despite his so 
definitely attested declining of 
all cosmical and theological 
speculation on principle, he 
nevertheless, whilst actually/ 
refraining from such enquiriesj 
could not conceal from himseli 
that they were involved, as af 

necessary consequence, in his 
intellectual principles ; with 
*>the same justice may it be said 
•\|of Blant, that, notwithstanding 
\n& critic of pure reason, he 
must, whilst disputing the 
I Metaphysics of Wolff, havc^ 
' necessarily seen that his prin- 
ciples would lead him consis- 
tently to the Idealism of Fichtc 
and the natural philosophy of 
Schelling ; both of whom, and 
the first-named even against 
Kant's own protests, appealed 
1 to these consequences. For all 
that, it is a dangerous business, 
from a consideration of logical 
consequences and the historical 
results of a principle, to correct 
Ithe clearest statements as to 
the doctrine of its originator, 
the question really being, 
whether and to wheit extent 
the founder realised these con- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


being conscious of its range. His conscious interest Chap. 

applies only to Ethics. Even the study of the rela- 
tion of means to ends in nature was, according to his 
view, subservient to a moral purpose — that of urging 
his friends to piety. ^ It cannot be altogether neg- 
lected in considering his teaching ; nor yet can we 
allow it, in the sense in which it was used by Socrates, 
an independent value, nor for this reason prefer it to 

The same remark applies to theology, which here 
fitill coincides with natural science. The motives 
which deterred him from the one must have deterred 
him from the other also.^ If, notwithstanding, he 
expressed definite views as to the Grods and the 
worship of the Grods, these views were the outcome 
of a practical love of piety. Theology then can only 
be treated by him as an appendix to Ethics. 

Even then, there are comparatively very few 
definite opinions in theology which can be brought 
home to Socrates with certainty. Indeed, how 
could it be otherwise, considering that a syste- 
matic treatment of Ethics is impossible without a 
basis either in metaphysics or psychology for it to 
rest upon ? The chief service which Socrates here 

• Xen. Mem. i. 4, 1 and 18 ; they had fully mastered human 
iv. 3, 2 and 17. things, as having advanced to 

• Xen, Mem. i. 1, 11 ; nothing such enquiries, J rek yukv itvOpo^- 
impious was ever heard from vivdt irapivres rh 9atfi6via Be 
Socrates ; ovBh yhp trepX t^s rSov aKOTcovyrcs rjyovvTeu rh trpocrfi- 
wdifTuif <p{Kr€ws . . . 5i€\^6To Kovra Trpdrreiv and 16 : airrhs 
. . . iWa KeA robs <l>povrl(ovTas 84 ircpl r&y ayBpterelanf &el 8xc\^ 
rk Totavra for, as it is said,§15 : yero, (tkotcwv ri tvarcfihs rl iLcefids, 
ol rh $€ia ftrowvTcy] fjuapcdvoirras &c, 

iLT€9eiKyv€. He asked whether 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 





thmght of 
Ethics : v 
is Imoiv- 

rendered was a formal one — ^that of generally refer- 
ring moral action to knowledge : no sooner, howeverj 
is it a question of deducing particidar moral acts and 
relations from knowledge, than he contents himself 
partly with falling back upon prevailing custom, or 
else there intervenes an accidental reference to pur- 
j)oses, the defects of which are certainly partially 
corrected in the sequel. 

The leading thought of the ethics of Socrates 
may be expressed in the sentence — All virtue is 
knowledge.^ This assertion is most closely connected 
with his whole view of things. His efforts aim from 
the first at re-establishing morality and rooting it 
more deeply by means of knowledge. The experi- 
ences of his time have convinced him that the con- 
ventional probity of moral conduct, resting as it does 
on custom and authority, cannot hold its ground* 
His sifting of men discovered, even in the most cele- 
brated of his contemporaries,^ a pretended in place 

> Arigt, Eth. N. vi. 13 ; 1144, 
h, 17, 28 : ZluKpdriis . . . ^potni- 
aets ^€ro tlvou irdffas ras iiperds 
. . . "^Icpdrris fi^v oZv \6yov5 
rcks &p€T&s ^€70 tlvcu, iiTUTriifias 
ydkp flvat irdarasy Ibid, iii. 11 ; 
1 116, b, 4 ; Eth. Eud. i. 6 ; 1216, 
1), 6 : iviariifJLas fer* tlvou irda'as 
rks itperdSj &<fB^ &fM avjjfialvtiy 
etflevai t€ r^v HiKouoavvriv kolL 
tlvat ^Ikcuop, Conf . Ibid. iii. 1 ; 
1229, a, 14; vii. 13; M. Mor. 
i. 1 ; 1182, a, 15 ; i. 35 ; 1198, 
a, 10; Xen. Mem. iii. 9, 5: 
14^ 5^ Koi T^v HiKaioff^fvriy ical 
TTiv AWriv traaaiM kper^v ffo<l>iay 
tlyai * rd r€ yiip bUaia Koi irdvTa 
Bora &pcrp trpdrreTM KoXd re koI 

ityaBit that' koX ©(V tuf rohs 
TovTo fUidras &h\o iivrl roitrmf 
ovh\v vpo€\4<rdat, oUre rohs /i^ 
i'Ki(rTafi4yovs BvvourBtu wpdrr^Wf 
&AXa KCkl i^ iyx^tp&o-ty afjuafird- 
vti», i. 1, 16 : he always con- 
versed of justice, piety, koX vtfA 
r&v iKXwv, ft robs yXv tl^&ras 
^uro HxiKohs Kol kyoBohs cImu, 
rohs th hyvoovvras iipSpmroi^^is 
tty 9iKalo»s K€K\ri<r6ai, The latter 
iv. 2, 22, PlatOy Lach. 194, D. : 
voXXdKis kicfiKod trov Xiyovros Sri 
toCto hyoBhs %Kwrros rifi&y iirtp 
(ro<l>6Sf &5^ iLfxaBiis rauraBk KaK6s, 
Enthyd. 278, E. 
2 Plato, Apol. 21, C. ; 29, B* 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


of- a genuine virtue. To attain true morality man Ohai». 
must seek the standard of action in clear and certain _ __J 

knowledge.^ The principle which has thus dawned 
upon him is, however, only understood in a narrow 
and exclusive spirit. Knowledge is for him not only 
an indispensable condition and a means to tnie 
morality, but it is the whole of morality. Whereby . 
knowledge is wanting, there not only is virtue im- ^*/ 
perfect, but there is absolutely no virtue at all. / 
Plato was the first, and after him more completely 
Aristotle, to improve upon the Socratic doctrine of ' 

In support of his position, Socrates established 
the point that without right knowledge right action ^ 
is impossible, and conversely, that^ where knowledge \ 
exists, right action follows as a matter of course; ^ 
the former, because no action or possession is of any 
use, unless it be directed by intelligence to a proper 
object ; ^ the latter, because everyone only does what 

* See p. 113. expedient and successful action. 

• It is only in Plato (Euth. Nor is it opposed hereto that 
280, B. ; Menoy 87, C), that immediately afterwards it is 
Sodrates ezpiressly takes this refused that wisdom is an &Ka/i- 
groirnd. Hence the Moralia ^ur^frrrfrrcts iyaB6p, many a 
Magna (i. 35; 1198, a, 10) one, like Dasdalus and Pala- 
sppear to have derived the msedes, having been ruined for 
corresponding view ; but it not the sake of wisdom. For this is 
only sounds very like Socrates, clearly said by way of argu- 
bnt it is also implied in Xeno- ment, and irwpla is taken in its 
phon ; Socrates there (Mem. iv. ordinary acceptation, including 
2, 26) explaining more imme- every art and every kind of 
^lately in connection with self* knowledge. Of knowledge, in 
knowledge, that it alone can his own sense of the term, 
teU X2B what we need and what Socrates would certainly never 
we can do, placing us so in a have said that it was not good 
position to judge others cor- because it brought men some- 
lectly, and qualifying us for times into peril, as the virtue, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





he believes lie must do, what is of use to himself : ^ 
no one intentionally does wrong ; for this would be 
the same thing as making oneself intentionally un- 
happy :^ knowledge is, therefore, always the strongest 
power in man, and cannot be overcome by passion.' 

identical therewith, also does. 
What is said, iii. 9, 14, respect- 
ing c^rpa|(a in contrast to 
c^rvx^ that it is KpdTi<rrov 
iirirrfidevfui, also refers to know- 
ledge. For finrpc^la consists in 
lxaS6vra ri ical fiiXer^ffdyra td 
'Kot€ty, or as Plato's Euthydemus 
281, A, explains it: hriff'Hifiri 
teaches to make a right use of 
all goods, and as KaropBovaa 
TTiv irpa^ty it produces cinrftayla 
and «*Tvx^«' Xenophon^ i. 1> 7 ; 
6, 4, expresses this view more 
definitely, ^^schines, too, in 
Demetrius de Elocu. 297, Rhet. 
Gr. ix. 122, puts the question 
into the mouth of Socrates 
when speaking of the rich in- 
heritance of Alcibiades: Did 
he inhmt the knowledge how 
to use it ? 

* Xen, Mem. iii. 9, 4 ; see 
above, p. 140, 1 ; iv. 6, 6 : v^&ras 
8^ & Sci irotctv oTei rivhs oUffdai 
SeTv fiij •woi€iy ravra ; ObK otoiuu^ 
t^. OT^as ^4 TWOS &?i\a iroiovv- 
ras fl & otovr at liw ; Ovk ^wy\ 
%ipvi. Ibid. 3, 11 ; PlatOy Prot. 
358, C. 

* AHst. M. Mor. i. 9 ; 2«- 
Kpdrris ^^Tj oifK 4^* Tifuv y€v4ffBtu 
rh ffirovBcdovs cTyot fj ^a6\ovs* 
et ydp ris, <pvitr\v, 4poyr4iau(sv 
6vnvaovVy Trdnpoy tt» $o6Kotro 
ZIkcuos ctvat ^ HZucos, obOels &y 
eXoiro r^v &8tjciay. More in- 
definite are the remarks in 
Eth. Nic. iii. 7; 1113, b, 14; 
conf . Eth. End. ii. 7 ; 1223, b, 

3, on the statement &s od8c2r 
4Ki>v 7coin\pbs ohV JSuccov fi^KOp, 
Brandis remarks with justice 
(Gr.-rom. Phil. ii. a, 39) that 
this refers in the first place to 
the arguments of the Platonio 
Socrates (see Meno, 77, B. ; 
Prot. 345, D. ; 353, C), but that 
the same is asserted by Xeno- 
plumy Mem. iii. 9, 4 ; iv. 6, ft 
and 11 ; and by PlostOy ApoL 
25, E. : ^7cl> 8^ . . . toGto ri- 
roffovrop Ktuchv knity voiw, &s iptjs 
aii; ravra 4'ytli aoi od ireldofuu, 
£ M4Krire . . , €i 8^ fticwv 8ta- 
<p$€ipM . . . BrjKoy tri 4ky fi/dBat- 
irwiffofieu 8 y€ &icwv voi&, Oonf • 
Dial, de justo, Schl. Dio^. Laert, ' 
ii. 31. 

» PlatOy Prot. 362, C. : V olit 
KoX &o\ roiv\n6v ti irepl alrn^s 
[t^j ^iTMTT^/Lirjs] 8ofrci, ^ Ka\6v re 
elyoi ii 4in<rHifi,ri^ Ktd oToy Apx^^f 
rod kydp^ov Kctt 4dvirep yvyyt&cKp 
rts riiyaBk Koi rk Kaxk fiif to^ 
KpamBiivat 6irb i»,ifiw6sy &<rT€ 
&\V &TTO wpdrrtiy ; ^ h t» ^ 
4wiffTfifiri K€\€iri, iAA* JKoy^r 
elyai riiy ^p6vniruf fivtiBuy rf. 
Mp^tp; The latter is then 
affirmed with the consent of ^ 
Socrates. (The further reason- 
ing is probably only Platonic.) 
Arigt, Eth. Nic. vii. 3 : 4Ki<mC-^ 
fxivoy fihy odv oH tpwrl rty^s ot6y r^- 
thai [&icpaT€i^e<rd«]. Bnyhy ydp, 
4in<rT^firi5 4yo6irris, as f€ro' 
"SoMpdrns, &AXo rt Kparw, Eth* 
End. vii. 13 : 6p6&s rh ^Kpan^ 
K6yt 8ri ot9^y Icxvp^^poy tppoyii'- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



As regards that virtue which appears to be 
furthest removed from knowledge, the virtue of 
braveiy, he more especially insisted u^n it, that in 
all cases, he who knows the true nature of an appa- 
rent danger and the means of avoiding it, is braver 
than he who has not such knowledge.^ Hence he 
concludes that virtue is entirely dependent upon 
knowledge ; and accordingly he defines all the par- 
ticular virtues in such a way, as to make them con- 
sist in knowledge of some kind, their difference being 
determined by the difference of their objects. He is 
pious who knows what is right towards God ; he is 
just who knows what is right towards men.^ He is 



ouK hpB6vy hper^ ydp iam ical ovk 
iwurrfifirj. If, therefore, any- 
one seems to act contrary to 
his better judgment, Socrates 
does not allow that is really 
the case. He rather infers the 
contrary. His conduct being 
opposed to right reason, he 
concludes that he is wanting 
in this quality ; Mem. iii. 9, 4 : 
'wpo<r€ptoT^fiwo5 Z4f tl robs iirurra' 
fUifovs M^ ^ Set itpdrrety, iroiovi^ 
ras B^ riofcurria, ao^^s re Jcal 
iyKparus thcu yofd(oi * obHiy 7e 
fiSUixoy^ fl<l»l fl iia-d^vs re koX 
iucparreis. In Xenophon, indeed, 
this is so put, as if Socrates 
had admitted the possibility of 
a case of knowing right and 
doing wrong. The real mean- 
ing of the answer, however, 
can only be the one given 

' Xen. Mem. iii. 9, 2 ; Symp. 
2, 12 : Socrates remarks, in re- 
ference to a dancing girl who 
is deliberating about sword 

points : oi^Toi ro6s ye Btwfieyovs 
rdB§ iLvri\4^€iv Irt otofiaiy &s oirx^ 
KOI Ti itvJiptla SiHcacrSy. Plato, 
Prot. 349, E., where it is proved 
by various examples — divers, 
knights, peltastas — that ol iiri- 
aTfifjLOves rwy fi^ hnaraiiiymy 
$ajipaX€(&T€poi cttriv. Arigt, Eth. 
Nic. iii. 11 ; 1116, b, 3 : loKeX 
tk kqX 71 ifiveipia ri ircpi I^Kacrra 
h^ptia ris etycu ' BBey fcoi 6 ^- 
KpdrTis (^$11 iiri<rHift,riy elyeu tV 
iyBpelaif. Conf . Eth. Eud. iii. 1 ; 
1229, a, 14. 

^ elffffi^s ss6 rk irepl robs deobs 
y6fUfjLa uH^s* BlKaio5 = 6 €i8^s rit 
irepi robs Mp^ovs ySfiifut. Mem. 
iv. 6, 4 and 6. The cdtrciScta, 
the definition of which is here 
given, is the same as the dciSrris, 
the conception of which is 
sought in Plato's Euthyphro. 
If, therefore, Chote, Plato, i. 
328, remarks a prqpos of the 
latter, that Xenophon's So- 
crates was neither asking after 
the general conception of the 
holy, nor indeed could pre-sup- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





brave who knows how to treat dangers properly ; ' 
he is prudent and wise who knows how to use what 
is good and noble, and how to avoid what is evil.^ 
In a word, all virtues are referred to wisdom or know- 
ledge, which are one and the same.^ The ordinary 
notion that there are many kinds of virtue is incor- 
rect. Virtue is in truth but one.* Nor does the 

pose it, his observation is 
contradicted by appearances. 
It does not, however, follow 
herefrom that Socrates wished 
the Gods to be honoured v6tu^ 
ir^X€wf. Why could he not 
have said, piety or holiness 
consists in the knowledge of 
that which is right towards the 
Gods, and to this belongs, in 
respect of the honouring of 
God, that each one pray to them 
after the custom of his country. 
A pious mind is not the same 
thing as worship. » That may 
remain the same when the 
forms of worship are different. 

* Xen. Mem. iv. 6, 11 : ol fihv 
ipa ivurrdfifyoi rots ^€iyois re 
Kol hriKaf9{vois koX&s \pri<rO(u 
^aptiol dirty, ol Bi 9itifxaprdyovr€s 
ro6rov 5fiXo£. Plato, Prot. 360, 
D. : fi ffofpla &pa r&v Beivuv imt 
fiil httv&v &i/8pc(a iffriy. The 
same thing is conveyed by the 
definition in Laches, 194, B. 
(which is not much imperilled 
by the objections raised thereto 
from a Socratic point of view). 
Courage is i> r&y Utiy&y hm 
0af^a\4wy ivurrhfiri ; only Baffia- 
\4os must not be rendered 
^Id* (as Schaao'schmidlj^mml, 
d. plat. Schr. 409, does). It 
means rather, according to 
198) B., as it so often does, ft fi^ 

9hs irap4xfi. Conf, Bonitz, 
Plat. Stud. iii. 441. 

' Mem. iii. 9, 4 : <ro(play 8^ icat 
(Tv^oa^yriy ob Sti^iCcy, &XX& rhv 
rk fihy KoKd r€ Keti hyaBk ytyytc- 
ffKovra XPVO'Bcu airoTs koI rhy ra 
aiaxp^ etS<{ra (shKafie^frBai tro^v 
r€ Ktd (Tt^poya l^Kpiyis. 

* !Mem. iv. 6, 7 : iirtffT'fifMi lipa 
(To^ia iirrly ; *Efioly€ HoKei. No 
man can know everything, h &pa 
iteiffrareu (^Kcurroi rovro kclL aro<p6s 

* Plato de velopes this though t 
in his earlier writings, Prot. 
329, B. ; 349, B. ; 360, E. : 
which, however, kept much 
more closely to the platform 
of Socrates ; it is also evidently 
contained in Xenophon. His 
meaning, as may be gathered 
from Mem. iii. 9, 4, is certainly 
not : some one may pibssess tho 
knowledge in which one virtue 
consists, whilst lacking the 
knowledge in which another 
consists ; but he assumes, just 
as Plato's Socrates does in the 
Protagoras, that where one 
virtue is, all must be there, all 
depending on the knowledge of 
the good. From this doctrine 
of Socrates the Cynic and Me- 
garian notions of the oneness 
of virtue arose. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


diflFerenoe between one person and another, one time Chap. 

of life and another, one sex and another, affect the 
question. For in all cases it is one and the same 
thing, which makes the conduct virtuous,* and in all 
persons the same natural capacity for virtue must be 
assumed to exist.^ The main point then invariably 
is to cultivate this disposition by education. Some 
may bring with them more, others fewer gifts for any 
particular activity ; yet all alike require exercise and 
training ; the most talented require it most, would 
they not be lost in ruinous errors.' There being no 
greater obstacle to true knowledge than imaginary 
knowledge, nothing can in a moral point of view be 
more urgently necessary than self-knowledge, to dispel 
the unfounded semblance of knowledge and to show 
to man his wants and needs. Bight action according 
to Socratic principles invariably follows upon know- 
ledge, just as wrong action follows jfrom absence of 

> PkaOf Meno, 71, D., and 8€?tox. Conf. PlatOy Bep. v. 

ArigtatUy Pol. i. 13, probably, 462, E. 

following the passage in Plato, ' Mem. iii. 9, 1 ; iv. 1, 3 ; 

1216, a, 20, which he must in iv. 2, 2. The question whether 

some way have harmonised virtue is a natural gift or a 

with the Socratic teaching : result of instruction — the iden- 

fi^re ^w^fH^Vy Ih-i iffrlv iidiic^ tical question to which Plato 

iLpcrii r&v %ifn)fjLivwv itdtfrwy, koX devoted a thorough discussion 

obx V tt^h crw^poainrn yvvauehs in the Meno and Protagoras — 

icaX iviphs, ov8' &v5p/a Kcd Sucaio- appears to bave become a fa- 

(TtJnj, Ka0dw€p ^ero ^Kodfrns . . . vourite topic of discussion, 

vo\b yhp ifieivoy \iyou<riv ol thanks to the appearance of 

i^apidfwvvrei tAs &perds. the Sophistic teachers of virtue. 

* Xen, Sym. 2, 9 : koL 6 2«- Such at least it seems in Xeno- 

Kpd/nis elwtv • iv iroXKois fi^v, & phoriy iii. 9, 1, and in the Meno. 

i»9p^5, Koi AWois irjKoVf Koi iv Pindar had previously drawn 

ofy y ri irois iro«T, 5ti ^ ywcuctia the contrast between natural 

^vats ov9hv x^^P^^ t^* toO kvlphs and acquired gifts. See above, 

od<rji7uyxdvu, p<6fjLri5 Hh koI itrxvos p. 23, 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 




knowledge ; he who knows himself will, without fail^ 
do what is healthful, just as he who is ignorant of him- 
self will, without fail, do what is harmful.^ Only the 
man of knowledge can do anything fitting ; he alone 
is useful and esteemed.^ In short, knowledge is the 
root of all moral action ; want of knowledge is the 
cause of every vice ; and were it possible wittingly to 
do wrong, that were better than doing wrong unwit- 
tingly ; for in the latter case the first condition of right 
action, the moral sentiment, is wanting, whilst in the 
former case it would be there, the doer being only faith- 
less to it for the moment.^ What, however, the know- 

* Mem. iv. 2, 24. For exam- 
ples of conversations, in which 
Socrates endeavoured to bring 
his friends to a knowledge of 
themselves, see Mem. iii. 6 ; 
iv. 2. 

* Mem. i. 2, 62 : the accuser 
"Charged Socrates with inducing 
his followers to despise their 
friends and relations; for he 
had declared, those only deserve 
to be honoured who can make 
themselves useful by means of 
their knowledge. Xenophon 
allows that he showed how 
little useless and ignorant 
people were esteemed by their 
own friends and relatives ; but 
he says that Socrates did not 
thereby intend to teach them 
to despise dependants, but 
only to show that understand- 
ing must be aimed at, tri rh 

* Mem. iv. 2, 19 : r&v 8* 8^ 
Toits <pi\ov5 i^airar^vrtav M fi\d$ri 
^6r€pos &5ifC(i6r€pos i<mv^ 6 iitt^y^ 
^ 6 &Kwy ; The question is after- 
wards thus settled : tA ^Uaia 

4^airar&v oVi€P, ^ 6 &kuv ; Ai}Aoy 
Zri 6 iiK&v, Aucai^fpop Zh f^^s 
€tvcu'] rhy 4ir icrdfityoy tA dUcaua 
rod fjL.^ Itrurrdfievov ; ^cdvofuu, 
Conf . PlatOy Rep. ii. 382 ; iii. 
389, B.; iv. 459, C; vii. 5^6, 
E. ; Hipp. Min. 371, B. It is 
only an imaginary case to .sup- 
pose that any one can know- 
ingly and intentionally do 
what is wrong ; for according 
to the principles of Socrates, 
it is impossible to conceive 
that the man who possesses 
knowledge as such should, by 
virtue of his knowledge, do 
anything but what is right, or 
that any one should spontane- 
ously choose what is wrong. 
If, therefore, an untruth is 
told knowingly and intention- 
ally, it can only be an apparent 
and seeming untruth, which 
Plato allows as a means to 
higher ends (Rep. ii. 382; iii. 
389, B. ; iv. 459, C), whereas 
want of knowledge is the only 
proper lie, a proper lie being 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


ledge is in which virtue consists, whether experimen- Chap. 

i;al or speculative, purely theoretical or practical — is a ; 

question upon which Socrates has not entered. In 
Xenophon at least he places learning and exercise 
^uite naturally together,^ although Plato had distin- 
guished them,2 and to prove that virtue consists in 
knowledge, that it requires knowledge, and can be ac- 
quired by instruction, he chooses by preference, even 
in the pages of Plato, examples of practical acquire- 
ments and of mechanical dexterity.^ 

As yet, however, all that has been laid down is in Q, The 
the nature of a formal definition. All virtue is know- j^^^ 
ledge, but of what is it the knowledge ? To this So- monUm. 
-crates gives the general answer,*knowledge of the good. ^^ ytrtue 
He is virtuous, just, brave, and so forth, who knows ned theo- 
what is good and right.* Even this addition is as 
wide and indefinite as those before. Knowledge which 

alwajs tinintentional, Rep. ii. by natural gifts are really de- 

382; V. 635, B. See ZeUer's veloped to mastery. In Mem. 

Phil. Stud. p. 162. iv. 1, 3, fjM6ri(ns and xadd€ia are 

* At the beginning of the generally required, but even 

Meno. here no difference is made be- 

2 Mem. iii. 9, 1, Socrates an- tween thfeoretical and practical 
swers the question whether knowledge, 
bravery is a ^dcucrhv or (pviriKov : • So R-otag. 349, B. ; Mem. 
the disposition thereto is quite iii. 9, 1 and 11 : ipxovns are 
as various as is bodily power, those iTturrdfievoi &px^^v, the 
.vofii(o9 fi4yToi iraffay (fp^ffiv /Aad^erci steersman in a ship, in agricul- 
Koi fi€\4Tp irpbs iiydpiav atf^cirdcu, ture, sickness, and athletics, 
in proof of which it may be those who have made it their 
noted that no nation with profession^ women in spinning, 
weapons to which it is un- The question here raised is dis- 
accustomed ventures to en- cussed at length by Striimpell, 
counter those who are familiar Gesch. d. Prakt. PhiL d. Gr. vor 
with them. So, too, in every- Arist. 146. 
thing else, it is the ^wi/t^Xeta, * See p. 143. 
the iiiayBdv€iv icai /icXcrai^, where- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, makes virtue, is knowledge of the good ; but what is-- 

^^i the good? The good is the conception of a thing 

viewed as an end. Doing what is good, is acting up 
to the conception of the corresponding action, in 
short, knowledge in its practical application, The 
essence of moral action is therefore not explained by 
the general definition, that it is a knowledge of the 
good, the right, and so forth. Beyond tl^is general 
definition, however, Socrates did not ^vance in 
his philosophy. Just as his speculative philosophy 
stopped short with the general requirement that 
knowledge belonged to conceptions only, so his prac- 
tical philosophy stopped short with the indefinite 
'w<Mi».postulate of conduct conformable to conceptions. 
From such a theory it is impossible to deduce defin- 
ite moral actions. If such are sought no other 
alternative remains but to look for them in some 
other way, either by adopting the necessary princi- 
ples from the prevailing morality withput fiurther 
testing them ; or, in as far as principles according to 
the theory of knowledge must be vindicated before 
thought, by a reference to experience and to the- 
well-known consequences of actions. 
(2) Prac- As a matter of fact both courses were followed 

^Good'^d^ by Socrates. On the one hand he explained the 
termi/ned conception of the right by that of the lawful.^ The 
either hy 

euftom or » Mem. iv. 6, 6 : A^icata 5^ ySfiifiov BiKouov cTi'at, and when 
utility. oJffBoy e<^77, diroia KoXeirai ;— *A Hippias asks for further infor- 
ot v6fioi K€\€vova-iVj t^(p7i. — Ol &pa mation as to what is meant by 
ToiovpTcs & Of ySfxoi Ke\e6ov(ri ydfitfiov: ySfiovs S^ ir<$A6a>f, e0^, 
dUaud T€ votovffi Koi & Sci ; Um yiyvdxTKeis \—^OhKovv, t<pr\ [So- 
yhp oH] In Mem. iv. 4, 12, So- crates], vofiifMs fihy kv eirj 6 Karh. 
crates says: (pijfJtX y^p iy^ ^h raOra [& o^ iroA(rai ^7/><ii^avToj i 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 



best service of Crod, he says, is that which agrees 
with custom ; ^ and he will not withdraw himself even 
from an unjust sentence, lest he should violate the 
laws.^ On the other hand, as a necessary conse- 
quence of this view of things, he could not be con- 
tent with existing moral sanctions, but was fain to 
«eek an intellectual basis for morality. This he 
could only take from a consideration of consequences ; 
^nd in so doing he frequently proceeds most super- 
ficially, deriving his ethical principles by a line of 
-argument, which taken by itself differs in results 
more than in principles, from the moral philosophy 
•of the Sophists.^ When asked whether there could 
be a good, which is not good for a definite purpose, 
he distinctly stated that he neither knew, nor desired 
to know of such a one 2 ^ everything is good and beau- 


*Kir€v6fi.evo5, fivofxos 8e 6 ravra iro- 
pafiaivoop ; Tlkp fihv dhv^ ll4>V- — 
•OifKovv Kol ^Ikcuu fikv hv vpdrTot 
•^ TO^oii 7r€id6ix€voSf iZiKa 8* 6 
Toirois hitfiB&v ; — Ildvv fihv oZv. 

' Mem. iv. 3, 16 : Euthyde- 
nms doubts whether anyone 
•can worthily honour the gods. 
Socrates tries to convince him. 
*^p^s yhpj Sri 6 iv A€\(po75 Oehs 
Zraiv Tts abrhv iireptor^ irus hv 
Tois 0€ois x'^P^C^'TO kiroKpiviTai 
pdfitp ir6\€ws. The same prin- 
*ciple is attributed to Socrates, 

* See p. 77, 1. 

' As Dissen has already 
.«hown, in the treatise referred 
to p. 100, 2. Compare Wi^fferSy 
Socrates, p. 187 ; Sumdallf De 
Philosophia Mor. Socr. 6h'ate 
(Hist, of Greece, viii. 605) 
agrees with this statement. 

only refusing to allow us to 
speak of Sophistic morals as if 
they were uniform. 

* Mem. iii. 8, 1-7, where it is 
said, amongst other things : 
ef 7' ipotT^s fitf €l Tt iyaBbv owo, 
t firi^evhs ayaB6v icrrtPf oik* oI5o, 
^4>V, ofhe SeojLuu . . . Acycis trir, 
&^ PApfoTtinros] KoKi re Kal 
cdfTXf^ '''^ avrh cfifcu; kcH v^ AC 
(hywy\ Hifyn [XuKpdrris'] kyoBd tc 
Koti Kcucd . . * meaning, as the 
sequel shows (not as Hibbing, 
1. c. p. 105, translates it : good 
and evil are the same), but 
the same thing is good and 
evil, in as far as for one pur- 
pose it is useful, that is good, 
and for another harmful ; trivra 
yhp ayoBh. fiky koI KoKd iffri, 
vphs & hf eZ ^xPt 'coica Zh Kal 
aiffxp^j vphs & &y kokws. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, tiful in relation to the special needs which it sub*^ 
' serves, and therefore one and the same tiling may be 
good for one and bad for another. He declared in 
a manner most pronounced, that the good is nothing 
else but the advantageous, the beautiful nothing else 
but the useful ; everything therefore is good and 
beautiful in relation to the objects for which it is. 
advantageous and usefid;^ confirming his doctrine 
of the involuntary nature of evil — one of the leading 
principles of his ethics — by the remark that everyone 
does that which he thinks advantageous for himself,^ 
There is, therefore, according to his view no abso-^ 
; lute, but only a relative good ; advantage and disad- 
vantage are the measures of good and evil.' Hence 
in the dialogues of Xenophon he almost always bases 
his moral precepts on the motive of utility. We 
should aim at abstinence, because the abstinent man 
has a more pleasant life than the incontinent : * we 
should inure ousel ves to hardships, because the hardy 
man is more healthy, and because he can more easily 
avoid dangers, and gain honour and glory : * we 

* Xen, Mem. iv. 6, 8, con- thing similar is found in Plato's, 

eluding : rb ftpa &<f>4\ifiov iuya06v Protagoras, 358, B. 

icrrtv tiT<p tuf oKt>4\ifiop ^ , , . rh •On the other hand, little 

Xfyflo'ifjLov &pa Ka\6y iffri irpbs t importance can be attached to- 

tiv ^ xp^^^V^v ; conf . iv. 1, 6 ; the treatment of happiness as. 

6, 6 ; Symp. 6, 3 ; PlatOy Prot. the highest end of life in Mem, 

333, D. ; 363, C, where So- iii. 2, 4. All Greek philoso- 

crates meets Protagoras with phers do the same, including 

the statement : toOt' lo-rly Plato, Aristotle, and even the 

kya6k & ioriv ittpiXifia to7$ ap$p<&- Stoics. 

vois, and afterwards explains * Mem. i. 5, 6 ; ii. 1, 1 ; conf. 

good to be that which juffords iv. 5, 9. 

pleasure or averts pain. • Mem. iii. 12 ; ii. 1, 18 ;. 

^ Xen, Mem. iii. 9, 4 : some- conf. i. 6. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


should be modest, because boasting does harm and Chap, 


brings disgrace.^ We should be on good terms with 
our relatives, because it is absurd to use for harm 
what has been given us for our good ; ^ we should 
try to secure good friends, since a good friend is the 
most useful possession : ^ we should not withdraw 
from public affairs, since the well-being of the com- 
munity is the well-being of the individual;^ we 
should obey the laws, since obedience is productive of 
the greatest good to ourselves and to the state ; and 
we should abstain from wrong, since wrong is always 
punished in the end/ We should live virtuously, 
because virtue carries off the greatest rewards both 
from Crod and man.^ To argue that all such-like 
expressions do not contain the personal conviction 
of the philosopher, but are intended to bring those 
to virtue by meeting them on their own ground, 
who cannot be got at by higher motives, is evidently 
laboured, considering the definiteness with which 
Socrates expresses himself.^ Unless, therefore, Xeno- 
phon is misleading on essential points, we must 
allow that Socrates was in earnest in explaining the 
good as the useful, and consequently in the corre- 
sponding derivation of moral duties. 

True it is that in the mouth of Socrates other (3) pi- 
utterances are met with, leading us beyond this super- ^^'of 


* Mem. i. 7. • Mem. ii. i, 27, gives an ex- Mm-ality. 
2 Ibid. ii. 3, 19. tract from a writing of Pro- 

* Ibid. ii. 4, 5 ; ii. 6, 4 and dicus, the substance of which 
10. Socrates appropriates. Conf . i. 

* Ibid. iii. 7, 9 ; ii. 1, 14. 4, 18; iv. 3, 17. 

* Ibid. iv. 4, 16 and 20; iii. ' This point wiU be snbse- 
9, 12. qnently discussed. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, ficial ground of moral duties, by placing the essential 


advantage of virtue, the purpose which it serves and 
because of which it is good and beautiful in its in- 
fluence on the intellectual life of man.^ Most un- 
doubtedly and decidedly would this be the view of 
Socrates could we attribute to him the maxim so 
familiar to the Socrates of Plato,^ that righteousness 
is health, unrighteousness disease of the soul, and 
consequently that all wrong-doing invariably injures 
him who does it, whereas the right is necessarily and 
always useful. Language of this kind occurring in 
the Republic and Grorgias does not justify our be- 
lieving it. In these dialogues much is put into the 
mouth of Socrates, which he never said and never can 
have said. Nor can it be pleaded that Plato would 
never have held such pure moral conceptions, imless 
he had had them from his teacher. Otherwise the 
theory of ideas and much besides which is found in 
Plato would have to be attributed to Socrates. We 
cannot even vouch for it that everything contained in 
the Crito comes from Socrates, its author not having 
been present at the conversation which it describes. 
Having apparently, however, been committed to 
writing no long time after the death of Socrates, and 
not going beyond his point of view, it is noteworthy 
that this dialogue contains the same principles : ^ a 

* On what follows compaxe » Crito 47, D : as in the 
RibHng, p. 83, 91, 105, whose treatment of the body, the 
researdies are here thankfully physician's advice must be 
acknowledged, whilst all his followed, so in questions of 
conclusions are not accepted. right and wrong the advice of 

* See Zeller's Phil. d. Griech. him $ €t /a^ iLKoXovG^trofitv, 
p. 661 of second edition. dtoupO^povfiev iKuvo koI Kto^ffS^ 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



<}ircumstaiice which at least shows that they have a 
support in the teaching of Socrates. To the same effect 
likewise the Apology expresses itself, Socrates therein 
gmmning up the purpose of his life as that of con- 
vincing his fellow-citizens that the education of the 
soul is more important than money or property, 
honour or glory ; ^ declaring at the same time in 
plainest terms, that whether death is an ill or not 
lie knows not, but that injustice is, he knows well.^ 

Similar language is found in Xenophon. In his 
pages too Socrates declares the soul to be the most 
valuable thing in man, the divine part of his being, 
because it is the seat of reason and only the Season- 
able is of value.^ He requires, therefore, that the 
first care should be for the soul.* He is convinced 


^€00, % r^ yilv ^iKoltp fi4\Ttov 
4yiypero r^ 8^ a^U^ &irc^\XvTO. 
If, moreoYer, life in a diseased 
body has no value : fier* ixehov 
&pa fiuorhu iifuv ?ii€<p6apfi4yoVf $ 
rh iJSiKov Xufiarai rh dh ZCkwov 
hvlvriffiVy provided this is not 
a ^HxuK&T^pov'bvLtdkVoKh rifiu&Tf- 
pov than that 49, A: wrong- 
•doing always injures and dis- 
graces him who commits it. 

* Apol. 29, D. : as long as he 
lived, he would not cease ^iXo- 
■co^v Kal vfiiv irapcucfKtvSficvos 
. . . \iymv oTdvep €t»0a, dri, & 
dpiffre iy^paVy , . . xPVf"^'*'"^ 

. . . KoX Sd^ijs KcH rifirjSf ^pop-fi- 
ireas 5c koI &Xi70e(as xol rris 
^IfvxrjSf Shtoos &5 fieXrlffrri itrrou, 
ovK hrtfi€\€7 ohdk <l>pojnl(€i5 ; he 
would rather blame a man in 
•«veiy case where it was neces- 
sary Sri rit vXeiffrov i^ia irtpl 

iXaxio'TOV iro(€7rai, tA Zh <l>au\6' 
rtpa TTcpi irXtiouos, 

2 Ibid: 29, B. 

» Mem. i. 4, 13 : God has 
not only taken care of the 
human body, AAA' Sxcp fi4yurT6v 
icrri Ka\ r^v ^xh^' Kparltrrriv ry 
hfOp^cp iv4<l>v<rc, 1. 2, 53 and 
65, where the statement Srt rh 
&<ppov (irifi6y iam- is proved by 
the fact that you bury the 
body as soon as the sotd ip ^ 
u6y0 yivercu <l>p6infi(ri5 has left it, 
iv. 3, 14 : kvBpf&riFov y€ 4^x^» 
cfirep ri #cal &Wo twv hvBpwKivtov 
TOW d^iov /xerixei, 

* Mem. i. 2, 4: Socrates 
recommends bodily exercise 
within certain limits : ra^v 
y^p riiv l|ty {fytupfiv re Ucof&s 
ilvai icol T^i' T^s ^vx^s ifrifi4\€iav 
(which accordingly regulates 
the care of the body) o6k 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, that conduct is better, the more you aim at the 
■ education of the soul, and more enjoyable, the more 
you are conscious thereof.^ The intellectual perfec- 
tion of man depending in the first place on his know- 
ledge, wisdom is the highest good, without compare 
more valuable than ought besides.* Learning is^ 
recommended not only on account of its utility, but 
far more because of the enjoyment which it directly 
confers.' These expressions folly agree with what 
has been quoted from Plato ; they also appear quite 
consistent in a philosopher who bases the whole of 
moral conduct so decidedly upon knowledge, and so 
expressly leads man to knowledge of and to dealing: 
with self, as Socrates does.* 

What then must* be made of accounts in which 
Socrates recommends moral duties entirely on grounds 
of outward adaptation to a purpose, such as we fre- 
quently find in Xenophon ? Are we to assume that 
all such explanations are only intended for those who 
I were too unripe to imderstand the sage's real mean- 

ing, to show that even on the hypothesis of the ordi- 
nary unsatisfactory definition of purpose, virtuous 

* Mem. iv, 8, 6 : ipurra fiJkv me^ded by Socrates for pre- 
ykp oJfjLcu (gv rohs &piara Iiti/ac- ferring treasures of wisdom to 
\ovfi4vovs TOW &5 $€\rlffTovs yly- treasures of gold and silver ;. 
vecrOau, ffiurra Si rohs fidXiffra for the latter do not make 
cdaBoivofifyovs, thi fieKrtovs yly- men better, ris 8^ r&v <ro^v 
vovrai, i. 6, 9 : oTci cibv h.irh &y9p&y yv^fios iiperp irKovTiCeiit 
irdvrotv ro^wv roifa^njv ri^ov^ robs K€KTiifji4vov$. 

elpcu, Z<niv ikirh rod ^aur6p re ' Mem. iy. 5, 10 : aAA& /ij^y- 

fiytiarOau fie\rl<a yiyv^ffSai #cal hirh rov fiofftlv ri KoXhv ical 

^IKous hiuivovs KraffBou. ; igyaB6v , , . oh fx6vov w<ft4\€iat 

* Mem. iv. 6, 6 : ffOiplay Bh rh &A\& iced ^Sovol fUyurrcu yiyvov- 
/jL^yurroy ayoBhv k. t. A. ; iv. 2, rai, Conf. ii. 1. 19. 

9, where Euthydemus is com- * Conf. pp. 65, 121, 140. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


conduct is the best? that Xenophon took these Chap. 
preliminary and introductory discussions for the * 

whole of the Socratic philosophy of life, and hence 
drew a picture of the latter, representing, it is 
true, his own but not the platform of the real So- 
crates ? ^ This view has no doubt its truth, but it is 
hardly the whole truth. We can readily believe that 
Xenophon found the more tangible foundation for 
moral precepts which judges them by their conse- 
quences both clearer and more intelligible than the 
deeper one which regards their working on the inner 
condition of man. We naturally, therefore, expect 
his description to give the preference to this 
to him more intelligible explanation even at the 
cost of the other ; and to throw the other more into 
the background than the actual state of the case 
warrants. We must, therefore, allow double value 
to such Socratic utterances as he reports implying 
a deeper moral life. We cannot, however, consider 
him so bad a guide as to report utterances which 
Socrates never expressed, nor can we give to these 
utterances a meaning by means of which they can 
be brought into fuU accord with Plato's description 
of the Socratic ethics. 

Take for instance the dialogues with Aristippus,^ 
where Socrates is asked to point out a thing good, 

* This is, in the main, the ieuy Daemon d. Sokr, 4, who ^ 

view of Brandis, Bhein. Mus. reproduces Xenophon's sayingg. * 

V. NiehuJvr u, Rraridis, i. b, 138 ; as incorrectly as he doea 

Gr. Rom. Phil. ii. a, 40 ; Gesch. Zeller's. 
d. Bntwickl. i. 238 ; RibUnff, « Mem. iii. 8. 
Sokrat. Stnd. i. 115 ; Volqtuird' 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap, and afterwards a thing beautiful, and both times 
answers that goodness and beauty consist in nothing 
else save a subserviency to certain purposes.* What 
inducement had Socrates here to withhold his own 
opinion? Was Aristippus one of the unripe un- 
philosophic heads, not in a condition to understand 
his views ? Was he not rather in addition to Plato 
and Euclid one of the most independent and intel- 
lectually best educated thinkers in the Socratic 
circle ? Why should Socrates say to him : everything 
is good and beautiful for that to which it bears a 
good relation, and hence the same thing may in rela^- 
tion to one be a good, to another an evil ? Why 
does he not add : one thing there is which is always 
and unconditionally good, that which improves the 
soul? Or did he add it, and Xenophon omit it 
although the main point ? ^ and was this so in other 
cases ?^ We could only be justified in such an 
assumption, were it shown that Socrates could not 
possibly have spoken as Xenophon makes him speak, 
or that his utterances cannot possibly have had the 
meaning, which they have according to Xenophon's 
account ; ^ to prove which it is not sufficient to appeal 
to the contradiction with which Socrates is otherwise 
charged. It is certainly a contradiction to call 
virtue the highest end of life, and at the same time 
to recommend it because of the advantages it brings : ® 

» See p. 149, 4. « What Brandis has else- 

* As Mem. iv. 6, 8. where asserted appears to be 

* Brandis, 1. c. less open to objection, viz. that 

* As Bra/ndis, 1. c. asserts. Socrates distinguishes mere 
Oonf. JHsseUf 1. c. 88; Bitter, good fortune from really far- 
Oesch. d. Phil. ii. 70. ing well, and that he only 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



and Plato recognisiiig this contradiction has avoided 
it,* Still the question really is, whether and to what 
extent Socrates has avoided it, and nothing can 
justify our assuming, that he cannot possibly have 
been involved in it. For is there not a contra- 
diction in Kant rejecting most decidedly for the 
moral estimate of our actions every standard based on 



allows happiness in its ordi- 
nary sense a place among 
things relatively good. The 
former statement is in Mem. 
iii. 9, 14 ; but this distinction 
even by a decided advocate 
of Eudaemonism, such as Aris- 
tippns, could be admitted, as- 
suming that true and lasting 
happiness is to be attained not 
by the uncertain favour of 
chance, but by one's own acti- 
vity and understanding, and 
that man must not make him- 
self dependent on extreme 
circumstances, but ensure a 
lasting enjoyment of life by 
rising superior to himself and 
his surroundings. If Brandis 
(Entw. i. 237) declares this 
ifnpossible, he need simply be 
referred to the fact that in the 
Cyrenaic and Epicurean schools 
such views are actually met 
with. See below, ch. xiv. B, 
5, and Zeller's Stoics, Epi- 
cureans, &c., p. 44. For the lat- 
ter statement Brandis appeals 
to Mem. iv. 2, 34. Here Euthy- 
demus has to be convinced 
of his ignorance in respect 
of good and evil. After it 
has been proved that all things 
considered by Euthydemus to 
be goods, wisdom included, 
may, under certain circum- 

stances, be disadvantageous, 
Euthydemus says : Kivhweiei — 
ivafjupiXjoyd^raTov kyalShv cTvat rh 
tidatfioveiy, to which Socrates 
replies : cf 7c /ai^ tis a(nh 4^ 
&fi<pi\6y<oy ityaO&y ffuvrideliri, or 
as it is immediately explained, 
eX ye /u^ irpotrOiia'Ofiev oftry xdWos 
ft iax^v ^ irXouToy ^ 8^|av ^ Kal 
Ti ^XXo r&v rotoirtoVy since 
among all these things there 
is none which is not the source 
of much evil. Far from deny- 
ing, this proceeds on the dis- 
tinct understanding that hap- 
piness is the highest good — 
which Greek ethics invariably 
presuppose ; neither is it called 
simply an &fi<f>l\oyov ii.yadhi/, ex- 
cept in the case that it is com- 
pounded of dLfi^lKoya hyaBa, i.e. 
of such things as under certain 
circumstances lead to evil, and 
are not simply ayaBky but some- 
times icoici. Still less is this 
statement at variance with 
passages which estimate the 
value of every thing and of 
every action by its conse- 
quences, a standard being the 
very thing which Socrates is 
here laying down. 

* As Plato has already re- 
marked, Rep. ii. 362, E. ; Phsedo, 
68 D. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, experience, and afterwards deciding the question as 
* to what maxims are suited to the principle of uni- 
versal legislation, having regard to the consequences 
which would follow were they universally adopted ? 
Is there not a contradiction in the same writer, at 
one time waging war/ 4 outrance^ against Eudaemo- 
nism, at another founcting the belief in the existence 
of Grod on the demand for a bliss corresponding 
to worth? Is not the critic of pure reason, in 
asserting the independent existence of a thing and 
at the same time unconditionally denying that it can 
be known, entangled in a contradiction so blatant, 
that Fichte was of the opinion that if it really 
assumed the independent existence of a thing, he 
would rather regard it as the work of a strange coin- 
cidence, than of human brains ? Can the historian 
therefore make the philosopher of Konigsberg say 
what he did not say ? Can he violently set aside 
these contradictions instead of explaining them? 
And would it be so inconceivable that the same thing 
should be true of the Socratic doctrine ? The philo- 
sopher wishes to build moral conduct upon knowledge. 
In point of form his conception of knowledge is 
80 indefinite, that it includes besides philosophical 
convictions, every kind of skill derived from ex- 
perience.^ In point of matter it suflFers from a 
similar indefiniteness. The subject matter of prac- 
tical knowledge is the good, and the good is the use- 
f td, or what is the same thing the expedient.^ But in 

* See p. 147. The identity of the good and 

^ Conf. p. 149, 4 ; 1 and 2. the useful is also presupposed 

Digitized by CjOOQIC 


n^hat this consists, Socrates according to all accounts Chap. 

lias not expressed with sufi&cient precision to avoid 
all ambiguity in his ethics. In passages of Plato 
from which we can gather the views of the Socrates 
of history, with some certainty, he does not even go 
beyond saying that intellectual culture, care for the 
soul, must be the most important end for man. Still 
to refer all human actions to this as their ulti- 
mate and final purpose is impossible for his unsyste- 
matic and casual ethical theories, unsupported by any 
comprehensive psychological research. Hence other 
ends having to do with man's well-being in the 
most varied ways come apparently independently to 
support that highest moral purpose, and moral 
activity itself appears as a means towards attaining 
these ends.^ If therefore Xenophon reports a number 
of Socratic dialogues in which things are so repre- 
sented, we may still maintain that they do not ex- 
haust the Socratic basis of ethics ; but we have no 
right to question the accuracy of his description, 
supported as it is by many traces in Plato, nor yet to 
twist it into its opposite by assuming that we have 
here only the beginnings of dialogues the real object 
of which must be a very different one. Their accu- 
racy on the contrary is vouched for by the circum- 

in the passages quoted from distinction in kind in the con- 

Flato on p. 152, although the ception of the ivad^i^, as to 

conception of the useful is regard the kyaffbv belonging to 

somewhat extended there. virtues as moral good, all 

* Comparethe sound remarks other good as good for the 

of Strumpelly Gtesch. d. Prakt. understanding only, and conse- 

PhiL d. Gr. 138, resulting in quently as only useful and 

this : Socrates xnade no such expedient. 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 




D. Pa^' 
moral re- 

stance,^ that among the Socratic schools side by side 
with the morals of the Cynics and the criticism of 
the M egarians, a place was found too for the Cyrenaic 
doctrine of pleasure ; and that the founders of these 
schools to all appearance were firmly persuaded that 
they reproduced the true spirit of the Socratic teach- 
ing. Had that teaching aflForded them no foothold, 
this phenomenon would be hard to understand. In 
its essence the Socratic morality is anything but 
selfish. That fact does not, however, prevent its 
assuming the form of Eudsemonism in its theoretical 
explanation. We do not complain of it as wanting 
in moral content, but as wanting in philosophic 

To give a systematic account of moral actions was 
not a part of the intention of Socrates. His views 

^ To which nermann^ Plat. i. 
257, rightly draws attention. 
When, however, this writer 
finds in the principle of utility 
(IHd. p. 254 Ges. Abh. 232) 
or as he prefers to call it in 
the predominence of relative 
value not merely a weak point 
in the philosophy of Socrates, 
but at the same time an in- 
stance of Socratic modesty, one 
feels inclined to ask, wherein 
does this modesty consist? 
And when he connects here- 
with the more general doctrine, 
constituting in his view the 
main difference between the So- 
cratic dialectic and the Sophis- 
tic, and also the foundation of 
the Socratic teaching on the 
truth of universal conceptions, 
he appears to advocate a doc- 

trine neither to be found in 
the Memorabilia (iii. 8, 4-7; 
10, 12; iv. 6, 9 ; 2, 13), nor in 
the Hippias Major of Plato (p. 
288)— the latter by the way a 
very doubtful authority. It is 
indeed stated in these passages, 
that the good and the beauti- 
ful are only good and beautiful 
for certain purposes by virtue 
of their use, but not tlmt every 
application of these attributes 
to a subject has only a relative 
validity. Under no circum- 
stances would the passage 
authorise a distinction between 
the Socratic and the So- 
phistic philosophy ; one of the 
characteristics of the Sophists 
consisting in their allowing 
only a relative value to all 
scientific and moral principles. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


were from time to time expanded as occasion required. Ohap. 
Chance has, to a certain extent, decided which of his ' 

dialogues should come down to us. Still it may be 
assumed that Socrates kept those objects more espe- 
cially in view, to which he is constantly reverting by 
preference according to Xenophon. Here in addi- 
tion to the general demand for moral knowledge, and 
for knowledge of self, three points are particularly 
prominent — 1. The independence of the individual 
as secured by the control of his wants and desires ; . 
2. The nobler side of social life, as seen in friend- 
ship; 3. The furtherance of the public weal by a 
regulated commonwealth. To these may be added 
the question, 4. Whether, and In how far, Socrates 
exceeded the range of the ordinary morality of the 
Greeks by requiring love for enemies ? 

Not only was Socrates himself a model of self- (i)/«<Wet- 
denial and abstemiousness, but he endeavoured to ^^^^JJ^' 
foster the same virtueg in his friends. What other 
subject was more often the topic ' of conversation 
than abstemiousness in the dialogues of Xenophon ? ^ 
And did not Socrates distinctly call moderation the 
comer-stone of all virtue ?* On this point the ground 
he occupied was nearly the same as that which after- 
wards gained such importance for the schools of 

> See the anthorities p. 150, If Socrates had at all reflected, 

4, 6. • he would have explained mode- 

• Mem. i. 5, 4 : 3pdt y€ oh xf^ ration as a kind of knowledge. 

xisrra $,v^pa, inni<f^vov r^v The above quoted passage 

iyKffdr€iav hperris elvcu KprjvTSay might then be taken to mean, 

Todniv upSnriv iv rfj ^uxv Kara' that the . conviction of the 

(TKevdtraa^ai ; This does not con- worthlessness of sensual enjoy- 

tiadict the assertion that all ments must precede every other 

virtue consists in knowledge, moral knowledge. 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 




the Cjnics and Stoics ; man can only become master 
of himself by being independent of wants, and by the 
exercise of his powers ; while depending on the con- 
ditions and pleasures of the body, he resembles *i 
slave.^ A philosopher who considers knowledge to 
be the highest good, will naturally insist upon the 
mind's devoting itself, uninterrupted by the desires 
and appetites of the senses,^ to the pursuit of truth 
in preference to every other thing; and the less value 
he attaches to external things as such and the more 
exclusively he conceives happiness to be bound up 
with the intellectual condition of man,^ the more 
will he feel the call to carry these principles into 
practice, by really making himself independent of 
the external world. Other motives, however, which 
served as a standard for moralists of a later epoch, 
were unknown to Socrates. He was not only an 
^ascetic in relation to the pleasures of the senses, but 
displayed less strictness than might have been antici- 
pated, neither shrinking from enjoyment, nor yet 
feeling it needful. To continue master of himself 
in the noidst of enjoyment, by the lucid clearness of 
his thought — that was the aim which his moderation 
proposed to itself.* 

tea, Mem. i. 5, 3 ; i. 6, 5 ; 
ii. y, 11 ; i. 2, 29 ; iii. 13, 3 ; and, 
inparticular, iv. 5, 2 ; Symp. 8, 
/* This connection appears 
sfearly Mem. iv. 6, 6. When 
crates had shown that want 
moderation makes man a 
slave, whilst moderation makes 
h im free, he continues : tro^iw 

tk rh fkiyiffrop h/yxtffbv oh 8oic€i 
cot i.vcipyovo'a r&v iiyOp^tcv ri 
iiKpauria (is rovvavrioy avrohs ifi- 
fidWtiy ; for how can any one 
recognise and choose what is 
good and useful, if he is 
ruled by the desire of what is 
pleasant ? 

» See pp. 141,2; 161. 

* See p. 74. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Strongest appears this character of the Socratic Chap. 
:abstineiice in the language he uses in reference to _ ' 
sensual impulses. However exemplary his own con- 
duct in this respect may have been, yet, in theory, he 
does not object to the gratification of these impulses 
out of wedlock, only requiring that it be not carried 
^o far as to exceed the requirements of the bodj, 
nor prove a hindrance to higher ^ends.^ The leading 
thought of his moral teaching is not so much strict 
purity as freedom of mind. 

This in itself purely negative condition of mo- (2) 
^rality receives its positive supplement when the •^'^ 
individual places himself in connection with others. 
The simplest form of this connection is friendship. 
Socrates, as we have already remarked, can only de- 
fend this relation on the ground of its advantages ; 
still there can be no mistaking the 6,ct that it 
possessed both for himself and for his philosophy a 
deeper meaning. For this, if for no other reason, 
it was cultivated by preference, and discussed in all 
the Socratic schools. When knowledge and morality 
so fully coincide as they do from Socrates' point of 
view, an intellectual association of individuals is 

> Mem. i. 3, 14 : o8t« 8^ koX the harm it does to property, 

■hf^pobiffidi^iv rohs fi^ cur<l>a\&5 honour, and personal security. 

ixovras trplbs h^poliffia ^cro Socrates considers it ridiculous 

XP^vai xphs roiavroy oXa fi^ irdvv to incur danger and trouble 

fjL€v deoiUvov rod ffd^fiaros ovk &v for the sake of an enjoyment, 

irpocrSc'Icuro^ ^wX'?> ^fofityov 5i ovk which could be procured in a 

&v vpdyfiara xap€xoi . The last so much simpler manner from 

remark applies partly to the any common girl. Mem. ii. 1, 

prejudicial workings of pas- 6 ; 2, 4. The use which the 

aion, which makes a slave of Cynics made of these principles 

man, and deters him from will be seen hereafter, 
what is good, and partly to 

H 2 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap, inconcseivable without a more extended community 
of life. These personal relations become, too, all 
the more necessary in proportion as the thinker fails 
to be satisfied with his own thinking, and feels a 
need for investigation in common with otherp and 
for mutual interchange of ideas. Just as in the case 
of the Pythagorean league, from a common pursuit 
of morality and religion, a lively feeling of clan- 
ship, a fondness for friendship and brotherhood was 
developed, as in other cases, too, like causes produced 
like results, so, in the Socratic school the blending 
of moral and intellectual interests was the ground of 
a more intimate connection of the pupils with the 
teacher, and amongst themselves, than could have 
resulted from an association of a purely intellectual 
character. The question can hardly be asked, which 
came first with him, which afterwards ; whether the 
need of friendship determined Socrates to a con- 
tinuous dialogue, or the need of a common enquiry 
drew him towards all having a natural turn this way. 
His peculiarity rather consists in this — and this it is 
which makes him the philosophic lover drawn by 
Plato — that he could neither in his research dispense 
with association with others, nor in his intercourse 
with research. • 

Accordingly in Socrates are found impressive dis- 
cussions as to the value and nature of friendship.^ 
In these he always comes back to the point, that true- 
friendship can only exist amongst virtuous men,, 
being for them altogether natural and necessary ;, 
* Mem. ii. 4-6. 


■ ' Digitized by VjOOQIC 


true friends, he says, will do everything for one an- Chap. 
other. Virtue and active benevolence ^ are the only * 

means for seeming friends. From this platform the 
prevailing custom is then criticised. Socrates not 
only allows friendship to assume the Grreek form of 
affection for boys and men, but he adopts that form 
of it himself, hardly only out of mere deference to 
others.^ In applying, however, his own moral prin- 
ciples to this relation, he opposes the prevailing 
errors, and demands a reformation, in order that the 
sensual conception cf Eros may be transformed into 
the moral conception of Friendship.' True love, he 
declares, can only then be said to exist when the good 
of the loved object is sought disinterestedly; not 
when, with reckless selfishness, aims are pursued and 
means employed by which both persons become con- 
temptible to one another. Only by an unselfish love 
can fidelity and constancy be secured. The plea that 
the complaisance of the one buys the kindly oflSces 
of another for its complete training is wholly a mis- 
taken one ; for immorality and immodesty can never 
be means to moral ends.* 

It reaUy seems that with these principles Socrates (3) Civil 
was enunciating to his colEemporaries a new truth, or ^^^^ 

* Similar explanations are 8 ; ii. 6, 31. 

worked into the Platonic Lysis, » Symp. 8, 27 : oh yiip ot6v rt 

but probably in too free a man- xovripi avrhy xoiovma iuyoBhy rhv 

ner for us to be able to gain <r{tvovra kxo^tl^euy obS4 ye &mu- 

from them any information a-xwrlav xal h.Kpaffla» 7rap€x6- 

respecting Socrates. fievov iyKparrj koX cuIovimvow rhp 

* Xen, Symp. 8, 12, the lead- ip^ficyov votria-ou. 
ing thought of which at least * See p. 75. 
is Socratic. Mem. i. 2, 29 ; 3, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap, at least recalling to their memories one long since- 
forgotten.^ On the other hand, in his low estimate 
of marriage he agreed with his fellow-countrymen*. 
This was no doubt partly the cause of the Greek 
aCTection for boys ; partly, too, it was a consequence 
favoured thereby.^ Whilst assuming in women a 
moral disposition similar to that of men,^ whilst even, 
maintaining with intellectual T^omen an instructive 
interchange of opinions, he still speaks of married 
life in terms more in keeping with the husband of 
Xanthippe, than with the friend of Aspasia. He 
allows that a clever woman is as useful for the house- 
hold as a man, and he reproaches men for not caring 
about the education of their wives,* but he considers 
the procreation of children the end of marriage,* and 
his own conduct shows little love for domestic life.® 
His social and his personal instincts are satisfied by 
friendly intercourse with men ; in their society he 
sees a means of fulfilling his peculiar mission as an 
educator of mankind ; apart herefrom, with the pecu- 
liarity of a Greek, he considers the state, and not the 
family, to be the chief object of moral action. 

* Conf. PUto^ Symp. 178, C. ; A., the character of Xanthippe 
180, C. ; 217, E. (which has no pretensions to 

* Conf. PlatOy Symp. 192, A. great tenderness) he considered 
■ See p. 146, 2. the joking character of the 

* Xen. (Ec. 3, 10; but the conversation in Xen, Symp. 2, 
question may be raised, in how 10, being thrown into the. 
far the substance of these re- scale against the passages in 
marks applies to Socrates him- Plato, Apol. 34, D., the balance- 
self. Symp. 2, 9. of probability is, that Socrates 

* Mem. ii. 2, 4. lived almost entirely in'public^ 

* If in addition to the trait and almost never at home, 
described by Plato, Phaedo, 60, 

^ Digitized by VjOOQIC 

TJIE STATE. • 167 

Of the importance of the state, and the obliga- Chap, 

tions towards the same, a very high notion indeed is 
entertained by Socrates : he who would live amongst 
men, he says, must live in a state, be it as a ruler or 
as ruled- ^ He requires, therefore, the most uncondi- 
tional obedience to the laws, to such an extent that 
the conception of justice is reduced to that of obe- 
dience to law,^ but he desires every competent man 
to take part in the administration of the state, the 
well-being of all individuals depending on the well- 
being of the community.^ These principles were 
really carried into practice by him throughout life. 
With devoted self-sacrifice his duties as a citizen 
were fulfilled, even death being endured in order that 
he might not violate the laws.'* Even his philosophic 
labours were regarded as the fulfilment of a duty to 
the state ; ^ and in Xenophon's Memorabilia we see 
him using every opportunity of impressing able 
people for political services, of deterring the incom- 
petent, of awakening officials to a sense of their 
duties, and of giving them help in the administra- 
tion of their offices.® He himself expresses the 
pojitical character of these efforts most tellingly, by 
including '^ all virtues under the conception of the 
ruling art.® 

* Mem. ii. 1, 12. 291, B., ttoKiriK^ stands for 
2 See p. 148, 1. fiaffiKiKt). 

* Mem. iii. 7, 9. * Accordingly the s^ory told 

* See p. 76. by Oicei'o, Tusc. v. 37, 108, and 

* See pp. 66, 7 ; 68, 2. Plut. de Exil. c. 6, p. 600, 

* Mem. iii. 2-7. JEpict. Diss. i. 9, 1 (Conf. Mu- 
"^ fioffiKiK^ rixvri in Mem. ii. son. in Stob. Floril. 40, 9), that 

1, 17 ; iv. 2, 1 1. Plato, Euthyd. in answer to the question, to 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





Whilst thus doing homage to the old Greek view 
of the state, in other respects he deviates from it 
widely. If knowledge is the condition of all true 
virtue, it is also the condition of all political virtue ; 
all the more so in proportion as the conception of 
political virtue is the higher one. Hence everyone 
who aspires to the position of a statesman is required 
to prepare himself for this calling ^ by a thorough 
self-sifting and a course of intellectual labour ; and 
conversely, Socrates only recognises capacity or right 
to political position where this condition is fulfilled. 
Neither the possession of power, nor the good fortune 
of acquiring it by lot or popular election, but only 
knowledge makes the ruler.* As regards the rule of 

what country he belonged, he 
replied that he was a citizen of 
the world, cannot command 
credit, and the question itself 
sounds strange as addressed to 
Socrates in Athens. In Plato's 
Crito and Apol. 37, C, he uses 
language very different from 
i he later cosmopolitan philoso- 
phers. Probably one of these 
attributed to him the above 

* Mem. iii. 6, particularly 
towards the end; iv. 2, 6; 
Plato, Symp. 216, A. See p. 

2 Mem. iii. 9, 10 : fia<n\us Si 
Koti &pxoyras ov rovs rh, ffK^vrpa 
Ixoi^iw ^<pV cTva*, ov^h Tohs virh 
rS*v rvx^v^f^y alp€0€pras, obH^ 
Tohs KKiipq} Aax<J>*ros, obhe rohs 
0iafftiix4vou5, ou8i rovs i^airarij' 
aavraSf iXAi rohs itruTrafiivovs 
HpX^t" : in all other cases obedi- 
ence is given to men of pro- 
fessional knowledge ; — which 

is then illustrated by the ex- 
ample of physicians, pilots, 
and others. Similarly in Mem. 
iii. 5, 21 ; iv. 2, 2 ; iii. 1, 4 ; 
Ibid. 4, 6 : \4y<o fywyc, &s Utov 
&v ris vpoaraTcvrt i^v yiyvdotncy 
T6 &v Set K<d ravra jropiCecBai 
H^vTp-cu, iryaBhs tiv ^tri vponrd' 
TT?y. Similar views are advo- 
cated by Plato with the same 
illustrations, Polit. 297, D., 
and they appear to have been 
generally held in the school 
of Socrates. Accordingly the 
accuser Xen. Mem. i. 2, 9, 
charges Socrates with having 
contributed to bring existing 
institutions into contempt : 
\4y(cy &s fuop&v els rohs fihv rrjs 
vSXiOis Hpxopras &irb Kvdfiov koB- 
iffrourBoUf Kv$€pyi)Tp 8i firidtya 
d4\€iv icexp^cr^ai Kuafievr^ firjUh 
TiKToyi firil? av\iirp firfd^ In' &Wa 
roiavra, and Xenophon does 
not deny the accuracy of this 
statement, but only attempts 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



the majority, his judgment is, that it is impossible Chap. 
for a statesman desirous for right and justice to hold 
his own against it ; hence, where it prevails, what 
else can an upright man do but withdraw to private 

A political principle was here advocated, which 
brought Socrates not only into collision with the 
Athenian democracy, but with the whole political 
administration of Greece. In place of the equality 
of all, or the preference accorded to birth and 
wealth, he demanded an aristocracy of intelligence ; 
in place of citizen-rulers, a race of intellectually edu- 
cated oflScials ; in place of a government of tribes 
and people, a government by professional adepts, 
which Plato, consistently' developing the principles 
of Socrates, attempted to realise in his philosophic 
community.* Socrates is here observed following 
in the track which the Sophists first struck out, 
being themselves the first to offer and to declare 
necessary a preparatory intellectual training for a 
statesman's career. Still what he aimed at was in 
point of substance very different from what they 
aimed at. For him the aim of politics was not 
the power of the individual, but the well-being of the 
community ; the object of training was not to acquire 
personal dexterity, but to attain truth ; the means of 
<julture was not the art of persuasion, but the science 
of what really is. Socrates aimed at a knowledge by 
means of which the state might be reformed, the 

to prove the harmlessness of * Plato, Apol. 31, E. ; conf. 
43uch principles. Eep. vi. 496, C. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 






* one- 

Sophists at one by means of which it might be- 

The aristocratic tone of this view of the state 
appears to be contradicted by the ease with which' 
Socrates rose above the social prejudices of his- 
nation, meeting the ruling contempt for trade by the 
maxim that no useful activity, be it what it may,, 
but only idleness and^ctivity need call forth shame- 
Still both come from a common source* For just a& 
Socrates will have the position of the individual in 
the state settled according to his achievements, so 
conversely he will have every action appreciated 
which leads to any good result.^ Here, as elsewhere,, 
the conception of good is his highest standard. 

One consequence of the political character of 
Greek morality was that the problem proposed to the 
virtuous man was customarily summed up as doing 
good to friends and harm to foes. This very defini- 
tion is put into the mouth of Socrates ^ by Xenophon,. 
who likewise considers it most natural to feel pain at 
the success of enemies.^ On the other hand, in one 
of the earliest and most historical of Plato's dia- 

1 Mem. i. 2, 56. In keeping 
with this, he urges a friend 
(ii. 7) to employ the maids of 
his house in wool work, and 
another (ii. 8) to seek for occu- 
pation as a steward, refnting 
in both cases the objection, 
that such an occupation was 
unbeM|me for free men. 
Xe|^^^3^eld a different 
vi^^BMBb. 4. 2, and 6, 5), 
an^BEH^well known that 
PlaV^nillo. Socrates speaks 


as the son of a poor labourer. 
Xenophon and Plato as men of 
rank and property. 

* Mem. ii. 6, 35 : Koi tiri iyvw 
jcas &vhphs &pcT^y cTvai yiK^v rovs 
fihv <f>lKov5 ed voiovpra rovs Se 
iX^pohs KOKus. 

« Mem. iii. 9, 8: 4f06pop dl 
aKonav 5,ti clij, X^^n^v fxev TiJO, 
i^ei'^piCKty ahrhv ^rrq, oVr€ fxetnot. 
rijv iirl <f>i\69v arvxiMS oiir€ r^ 
iir^ ixBpSov eitrvxicus yiyyofitiniv,.. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



logues,^ Socrates declares it to be wrong to injure 
another : injury is the same thing as wrong-doing, 
and wrong-doing may never be permitted, not even 
towards one from whom wrong-doing has been suf- 
fered. The contradiction of these two accounts is 
hard to get over : ^ for assiuning it to be granted 
that the Socrates of Xenophon is only speaking from 
a popular point of view, still the fact would remain 
that Xenophon cannot have been conversant with 
explanations such as those given by Plato. No doubt 
Plato's account even in the Crito cannot be regarded 
as strictly conformable to truth ; still it may well be 
questioned whether he can be credited with such a 
flagrant deviation from his master's teaching ^ as this 
would be. That there is such a possibility cannot be 
denied; we must then be content to leave it in 
uncertainty as to which were the real principles of 
Socrates on this subject.* 



» Crito 49, A. Also Rep. i. 
334, B. 

* The remark of Meiners 
(Gesch. der Wissenschaft. ii. 
456) will not pass muster that 
Socrates considered it allow- 
able to do harm (bodily) to 
enemies, but not to injure 
them in respect of their true 
well-being, Xenophon express- 
ly allowing kokSos voieiy while 
Plato as expressly forbids it. 

» See p. 153. 

* Still less are we justified 
in asserting — as Hildehrcmd 
appears inclined to do (* Xeno- 
phont. et Arist. de (Economia 
publica Doctrina, part i. Marb. 
1845) — that Socrates was in 

principle opposed to slavery. 
If he held many things which 
according to Greek prejudices 
belonged to slaves not to be 
unworthy of a free-man, it by 
no means follows th^t he dis- 
approved of slavery; and the 
view that slavery is contrary 
to nature (mentioned by Aris- 
totle, Polit. i. 3) is not attri- 
buted to Socrates as its author. 
Had it belonged to him, it 
would utiJoiibtodly bavo been 
so mentioned, Bu^^ whole 
connection doe^^^^Hit So- 
crates, to wltom^^^^^Bgion 
between pia€f. ^^^^^^B i^ 
foreign. Wi:; ^^^^^^V^ ^^ 
think of the Cj 




€hap . Enquiries into nature, we have seen, did not form 
' part of the scheme of Socrates. Nevertheless, the 

'ends in 

A. Sfobm-' liije Qf ijis speculations led him to a peculiar view of 
m^wnsto nature and its design. One who so thoughtfully 
turned over the problem of human life from all sides 
as he did, could not leave unnoticed its countless re- 
lations to the outer world ; and judging them by the 
standard which was his highest type — the standard 
of utility for man — could not but come to the con- 
viction that the whole arrangement of nature was 
subservient to the well-being of the human race, in 
short that it was adapted to a purpose and good.^ To 
his mind, however, all that is good and expedient 
appears of necessity to be the work of reason ; for 
just as man cannot do what is useful without intelli- 
gence, no more is it possible for what is useftd to 
exist without intelligence.^ His view of nature, 

* For Socrates, as has been crates is desirous of convincing 
already shown, understands by a friend of the existence of the 
the good what is ' useful for Gods, and hence proposes the 
man. question : Whether more intel- 

* See Mem. i. 4, 2, in which ligence is not required to pro- 
the argument from analogy is duce living beings than to pro- 
most clearly brought out. So- duce paintings like those of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


therefore, was essentially that of a relation of means Chap. 

to ends, and that not a deeper relation going into the 
inner bearings of the several parts, and the purpose 
of its existence and growth inherent in every natural 
being. On the contrary, all things are referred as a 
noiatter of experience to the well-being of man as 
their highest end, and that they serve this purpose is 
also set forth simply as a matter of fact, and as due 
to a reason which, like an artificer, has endued them 
with this accidental reference to purpose. As in the 
Socratic ethics, the wisdom regulating human actions 
becomes a superficial reflection as to the use of par- 
ticular acts, so, too, Socrates can only conceive of the 
wisdom which formed the world in a manner equally 
superficial. He shows ^ what care has been taken to 
provide for man, in that he has light, water, fire, and 
air, in that not only the sun shines by day, but also 
the moon and the stars by night ; in that the heavenly 
bodies serve for divisions of seasons, that the earth 
brings forth food and other necessaries, and that the 
change of seasons prevents excessive heat or cold. 
He reminds of the advantages which are derived 
from cattle, from oxen, from pigs, horses, and other 

Polycletus and Zeuxis ? Aristo- he is obliged to confess, rk ir' 
demos will only allow this ox^cAeta yivdneva yvdtyLtis ejyai 
conditionally, and in one special (Ipya. Compare also Plato, 
case, efiref) ye fi^ r^xo '''"'^ ^"^ Phaedo, 29, A., although, ac- 
iirh yyi&fifis ravra yty4yirraij but cording to what has been said, 
he is immediately met by So- p. 69, we have not in this pas- 
crates with the question: rwv sage a strictly historical ac- 
8^ ii,r€Kfidfno»s ^x^vravtrov wKd count, and Arist, M. Mor. i. 1 ; 
itrri Kcd rSov <f>aif€p&s iv* w<l>€\ti^ 1183, b, 9. 
6vT«v vArepa n^xH^i *«^ irdrtpa * Mem. i. 4 ; iv. 3. 
yvdtfiris l/ryo KpCveis ; UpiTrei ^iv, 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, animals. To prove the wisdom of the Craftsman who 
' made man,* he refers to the organism of the human 
body, to the structure of the organs of sense, to the 
erect posture of man, to the priceless dexterity of his 
hands. He sees a proof of a divine Providence in 
the natural impulse for propagation and self-preser- 
vation, in the love for children, in the fear of death. 
He never wearies of exalting the intellectual advan- 
tages of man, his ingenuity, his memory, his intelli- 
gence, his language, his religious disposition. He 
considers it incredible that a belief in Grod and in 
Providence should be naturally inborn in all men, 
and have maintained itself from time immemorial, 
clinging not to individuals only in the ripest years 
of their age, but to whole nations and communities, 
unless it were true. He appeals also to special 
revelations vouchsafed to men for their good, either 
by prophecy or portent. Unscientific, doubtless, 
these arguments may appear, still they became in the 
sequel of importance for philosophy. 

As Socrates by his moral enquiries, notwithstand- 
ing all their defects, is the founSer of a scientific 
doctrine of morals, so by his theory of the relation 
of means to ends, notwithstanding its popular 
character^ he is the founder of that ideal view of 
^ nature which ever after reigned supreme in the 
natural philosophy of the Greeks, and which with 
all its abuses has proved itself of so much value 

^ In Mem. i. 4, 12, a remark rSov ii^pohiffiMv 7fioyh.s toTs fi^v 

is fomid indicative of the popu- &\Aots fy'oij Zovvau vtpiypS^ourras 

lar character of these general rov i^rovs xp^^ov^ fifiip 8^ trw^x^s 

considerations : rh 5i K(d tAs m^XP' T^P»s rvaha Top^x^iy. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


for the empirical study of nature. True, he was not Ohap . 
himself aware that he was ^engaged on natural ' 

science, having only considered the relation of means 
to ends in the world, in the moral interest of piety. 
JStill from our previous remarks it follows how closely 
his view of nature was connected with the theory of 
the knowledge of conceptions, how even its defects 
were due to the imiversal imperfection of his intel- 
lectual method. 

Asking further what idea we should form to our- B. God 
selves of creative reason, the reply is, that Socrates worship of 
mostly speaks of Grods in a popular way as many,^ no ^<'^- 
doubt thinking, in the first place, of the Grods of the laruseof 
popular fai th.^ Out of this multiplicity the idea of the ^q^^ 
oneness of Grod,^ an idea not unknown to the Grreek 
religion, rises with him into prominence, as is not 
infirequently met with at that time.* In one passage 
he draws a curious distinction between the creator 
and ruler of the universe and the rest of the Grods.^ 
Have we not here that union of polytheism and 

^ Mem. i. 1, 19 ; 3, 3 ; 4, 11 ; roav t€ Koi o-w/exwv, iv $ vdvia 

iv. 3, 3. HoXa ical iryaBd i<m, fcol &6l fihv 

2 Mem. iv. 3, 16. XP*'/*^*'®** it.rptfiri re Koi 6710 

* Compare ZeUer's Introduc- koX kyfiparoy vapixooy, Barrov 
tion to his Philos. d. Gf^riechen, 8i voiifiMros ianifjuipr'firots ^mipt- 
p> 3. rovvra, otros tA fidyicra /iiv 

* Mem. i. 4, 5; 7, 17: 6 4^ xpdrrMv dparcu, T^i€ Se oucopo- 
dpx^s ToiQv kvBpi&irovSf — <ro<f>ov fiuv ii6paros iiiuv itrriv, Krische*8 
Tivos Ihifjuo6pyov koX <pi\o(^ov — argnment (Forsch. 220) to prove 
rhy rod Btov 6<l>6a\fibpf t^k rev that this language is spurious, 
ScoO <l>p6yria-iv. although on his own showing 

* Mem. iv. 3, 13. The Gods it was know& to Phaedrus, 
are invisible; ot t€ 7^ &X\oi Cicero, and the writer of the 
rifuy rh iyoBit diS6yr€s ovdhv treatise on the world, appears 
roOruv els To2>/i4>avis idrrts ^I96a- inconclusive. 

-ciVy K(d b rhp t\op KdfffMP ffwrdr- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap , monotheism, so readily suggested to a Greek by his^ 

'_ __ mythology, which consisted in reducing the many 

Crods to be the many instruments of the One Supreme 
(2) Ood In as far as Socrates was led to the notion of One 

^^^ Supreme Being by the reasonable arrangement of the 
Reason cf world, the idea which he formed to himself of this 
Being (herein resembling Heraclitus and Anaxagoras) 
was as the reason of the world, which he conceives 
of as holding the same relation to the world that the 
soul does to the body.^ Herewith are most closely 
connected his high and pure ideas of Grod as a being 
invisible, all-wise, all-powerful, present everywhere* 
As the soul, without being visible, produces visible 
effects in the body, so does Crod in the world. As 
the soul exercises unlimited dominion over the small 
portion of the world which belongs to it, its indivi- 
dual body, so Grod exercises dominion over the whole 
world. As the soul is present in all parts of its body, 
so Grod is present throughout the Universe. And if 
the soul, notwithstanding the limitations by which it 
is confined, can perceive what is distant, and have 
thoughts of the most varied kinds, surely the know- 

* Mem. i. 4, 8 : ffb tk ffcMiv ry xoktI ^p6vn<nv rh irdvrathras 

4>p6vifjL6v Tt doKeis ^x^^^i &XA.oOi &y ahrfj rfih ^, otrw^BtaBai * koI 

tk ovUafiov ohhhv oUi ^pSvifxov fi^ rh <rhv fihv 6fifM 96pcur0€U 4irl 

eJpcu . , . Kal T(£8e ra ^epfieyeBri iroAA^ crdidui i^ueveitrBiU, rhv Sk 

Ktd irK^Bos iweipa (the elements, rod 0«oO 64>B€tKfihv iL^6varov cTvoi 

or generaUy, the parts of the A/ia irrfin-o dpw • ^1178^, r^v o^it 

world) HC iu^poffhniv rivh ofirws fi^v ^vxh^ *«^ ''*P^ '''«>' ^pBdlUt koL 

oUi evrAKTws Ix^*'' ; 17 : KardfwBe x«pl r&p 4v Aly^rrtp iced iSiKcX/i^ 

Uri icol d trhs vovs ivwv rh trhv H^curBai ^povri^uv, rijy 5^ rod 

a-QfJui BiFWS fio^Kercu ficraxdpl- Beov ^p6in\<nv /u^ iKav^v tXvou &fjut 

^rroi * oU<rBcu odv xp^ Kal r^v iv rrdan-nv hrtfuKua-Bai, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


ledffe and care of God must be able to embrace all Chap. 

and more.^ Besides had not a belief in the provi- 

dential care of God been already ^ taken for granted, 

in the argument for His existence from the relation 

of means to ends ? Was not the best explanation of 

this care to be foimd in the analogous care which 

the human soul has for the body ? A special proof 

of this providence Socrates thought to discern in 

oracles : ^ by them the most important things, which 

could not otherwise be known, are revealed to man. 

It must then be equally foolish to despise oracles, or 

to consult them in cases capable of being solved by 

our own reflection.^ From this conviction followed, 

as a matter of course, the worship of God, prayer, 

sacrifices, and obedience/ 

As to the form and manner of worship, Socrates, (^^ ^ . 

^' ' worshtpqf 

as we already know,^ wished every one to follow the Ood, 
custom of his people. At the same time he propounds 
purer maxims corresponding with his own idea of 
God. He would not have men pray for particular, 
least of all for external goods, but only to ask for 
what is good : for who but God knows what is ad- 
vantageous for man, or knows it so fully ? And, with 

* Compaie the words in Mem. tw tfeSv Tdijj • also i. 1, 19. 

i. 4, 18: If you apply to the * Mem. iv. 3; i. 4, 6 and 11. 

Grods for prophecy, yvdxro^ rh • Ibid. iv. 3, 12 and 16 ; i. 4, 

B^7ov • Ihi TOffovrop Koi TOiovT6if 14. 

iariv, &(rff &fjM vdvra bpav Kci. * Ibid. i. 1, 6. Conf . p. 77, 3 ; 

iFWra iLKo^€ip koX iroanaxov iropci- 65, 6. 

roi, Koi &fjLa irdprwv ^TifteXeureot • » Compare Mem. iv. 3, 14 ; 

and the words, Ibid. iv. 3, 12 : ii. 2, 14. 

Sri 5^ 7e oXijW) X^7« . . . 7>'<^<n?» * See^. 149, 1; 76, 7. 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, regard to sacrifices, he declared that the greatness of 
' the sacrifice is unimportant compared with the spirit 
of the sacrificer, and that the more pious the man, 
the more acceptable will the oflFering be, so that it 
correspond with his means.* Abstaining on principle 
from theological speculations,^ and not seeking to 
explore the nature of God, but to lead his fellow men 
to piety, he never felt the need of combining the 
various elements of his religious belief into one 
united conception, or of forming a perfectly consist- 
ent picture, and so avoiding the contradictions which 
that belief may easily be shown to contain.* 
O.IHgnity A certain divine element Socrates, like others 
%^^ before him, thought to discern within the soul of 
nwrtality. man.^ Perhaps with this thought is connected his 
belief in immediate revelations of Grod to the human 
soul, such as he imagined were vouchsafed to himself* 
Welcome as this theory must have been to a philoso* 
pher paying so close an attention to the moral and 
spiritual nature of man, it does not appear that 
Socrates ever attempted to support it by argument. 
Just as little do we find in him a scientific proof of 
the immortality of the soul, although he was inclined 
to this belief partly by his high opinion of the dignity 

* Mem. i. 3, 2 ; iv. 3, 17. believing in only one God. 

* See p. 139, 2. This assumption would belie 

* We have all the less reason not only the definite and re- 
for supposing with DenU (His- peated assertions of Xenophon, 
toire des Theories et des Id^es but also Socrates* unflinching 
morales dans I'Antiquit^, Paris love of truth. 

et Strasb. 1856, i. 79), that So- < Mem. iv. 3, 14 : hKKa f&V 

crates, like Antisthenes, spared Kf^ i»ep^ou y€ rfmx^, cfir«p ri koI 

polytheism from regard to the AWo r&v Mpcmiyvv, rov 0dov 

needs of the masses, whilst /Atr^x^i. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



of man, partly, too, on grounds of expediency.^ Nay, 
rather, in Plato's Apology,* at a moment when the _ 
witholding of a conviction can least be supposed, he 
expressed himself on this question with much doubt 
and caution.* The language, too, used by the dying 
Cyrus in Xenophon ^ agrees so well herewith, that we 
are driven to assume that Socrates considered the 
existence of the soul after death to be indeed pro- 
bable, without, however,* pretending to any certain 
knowledge on the point. It was accepted by him as 
an article of faith, the intellectual grounds for which 
belonged no doubt to those problems which surpass 
the powers of man.^ 

• The above description of 
the philosophy of Socrates 
rests on the exclusive autho- 
rity of Xenophon, Plato, and 
Aristotle. What later writers 
say is for the most part taken 
from these sources, and when- 
ever it goes beyond them, there 
is no guarantee for its accu- 
racy. It is, however. Just pos- 
sible that some genuine utter- 
ances of Socrates may have 
been preserved in the writings 
of ^schines and others, whidi 
are omitted by our authorities. 
In that category place the 
statement of Cleanthes quoted 
by Clement (Strom, ii. 417, D.), 
and repeated by Oieero (Off. iii. 
3, 11), that Socrates taught the 
identity of justice and happi- 
ness, cursing the man who first 
made a distinction between 
them : the statements in Oic. 
Off. ii. 12, 43 (taken from Xen. 
Mem. ii. 6, 39 ; conf . Cyrop. i. 
6, 22) ; in Seneca, Epiat. 28, 2 ; 
104, 7 (travelling is of no good 



* Compare Hermann in Mar- 
burger Lectionskatalog, 1835-6, 
Plat. 684. 

2 40, C. ; after his condemna- 

* Death is either an external 
sleep, or a transition to a new 
life, but in neither case is it an 

* Cyrop. viii. 7, 10. Several 
reasons are first adduced in fa- 
vour of immortality, but they 
need to be greatly strengthened 
to be anytMng like rigid proofs. 
(Compare particularly § 19 
with Plato's Phaedo, 105, C.) 
In conclusion, the possibility of 
the soul's dying with the body 
is left an open question, but in 
either case death is stated to 
be the end of aU evils. 

* He actually says in PlatOy 
Apol. 29, A. Conf. 37, B. : 
death is feared as the greatest 
evil, whilst it may be the 
greatest good : ^y^ 8i . . . oIk 
clS^s iKw&i X€pl rSov iv 'At5ov 
O0TW KoX oXoiMi ohK ^lUivQUi. 

V 2 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap. to fools); 71, 16 (truth and 
VIII. virtue are identical) ; in Plut, 

Ed. Pu. c. 7, p. 4, on education 

(the passage in c. 9 is an inac- 
curate reference to Plato, Grorg. 
470, D.) ; Cons, ad Apoll. c. 9, 
p. 106, that if all sufferings 
had to be equally divided, 
every one would gladly pre- 
serve his own; Conj. Praec. 
c. 25, p. 140 (Diog. ii. 33; 
Exc. e Floril. Joan. Damasc. ii. 
B. 98 ; Stob, FlorH. ed. Mein. 
iv., 202), on the moral use of 
the looking glass ; Ser. Num. 
Vind. c. 6, p. 550, deprecating 
anger; in J)emet. Byz. quoted 
by Diog, ii. 2l,(GeU. N. A. xiv. 
6, 5), Muson. in the Exc. e 
Floril. Jo. Dam. ii. 13, 126, 
p. 221, Mein, that philosophy 
ought to confine itself to 8, rt 
rot iv fxryiipourif Kcucdy r' iLya$6v 
T€ TfTVKTcu ; (othcrs attribute 
the words to Diogenes or Aris- 
tippus) Ci€. de Orat. i. 47, 204 : 
Socrates said that his only wish 
was to stimulate to virtue ; 
where this succeeded, the rest 
followed of itself (a statement 
thoroughly agreeing with the 
views of the Stoic Aristo, and 
probably coming from him. 
Conf . Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans, 
&c., p. 60; in Diog, ii. 30, blaming 
the sophistry of Euclid ; in Diog. 
ii. 31 (undoubtedly from some 
Cynic or Stoic treatise) thAt 

intelligence is the only good, 
ignorance the only evil, and 
that riches and noble birth do 
more harm than good ; in Diog, 
ii. 32, that to marry or to ab- 
stain from marriage is equally 
bad ; in GeU. xix. 2, 7 {Athen, 
iv. 158; Phd, And. Poet. 4, 
p. 21), that most men live to 
eat, whilst he eats to live ; in 
Stoh, Ekl. i. 54, giving a defini- 
tion of God ; Ibid. ii. 356, 
Floril. 48, 26 (conf. Plato, 
Legg. i. 626, E.), that self- 
restraint is the best form of 
government; in Teles, apud 
Stoh, Floril. 40, 8, blaming the 
Athenians for banishing their 
best, and honouring their worst 
men, and the apophthegmata 
in Valer, Max. vii. 2, Ext. 1. 
A large nimiber of sayings 
purporting to come from So- 
crates are quoted by Plutarch 
in his treatises and by Stobaeus 
in his Florilegium ; some, too, 
by Seneca. Most of them, how- 
ever, are colourless, or else 
they aim at being epigram- 
matic, which is a poor substi- 
tute for being genuine. Alto- 
gether their number makes 
them very suspicious. Probably 
they were taken from a collec- 
tion of proverbs which some 
later writer published under 
the name of Socratic proverbs. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Looking back from the point now reached to the Chap. 
question raised before, as to which of his biographers i 

we must look to for a historically accurate account A. Truth- 
of Socrates and his teaching, we must indeed admit, xerw- 
that no one of them is so satisfactory an authority as P^'»de- 
any original writings or verbal reports of the utter- 
ances of the great teacher would have been.^ So 
much, however, is patent at once, that the personal 
character of Socrates, as pourtrayed by both Xenophon 
and Plato, is in all essential points, one and the same. 
Their descriptions supplement one another in some 
few points, contradicting each other in none. Nay 
more, the supplementary portions may be easily in- 
serted in the general picture, present before the eyes ,jx ^^^^^^ 
of both. Moreover the philosophy of Socrates is not ph^^n's 
in the main represented by Plato and Aristotle in a /^^^^y 
a different light from what it is by Xenophon, pro- ^^* *^^ 
vided those parts only in the writings of Plato be andArU- 
taken into account which undoubtedly belong to So- *'^^- 

> Conf. p. 98. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap, crates, and in the Socrates of Xenophon a distinction 
be drawn between the thought underlying his utter- 
ances and the commonplace language in which it was 
clothed. Even in Xenophon, Socrates expresses the 
opinion that true knowledge is the highest thing, and 
that this knowledge consists in a knowledge of con- 
ceptions only. In Xenophon, too, may be observed all 
the characteristics of that method by means of which 
Socrates strove to produce knowledge. In his pages 
likewise, virtue is reduced to knowledge, and this 
position is supported by the same arguments, and 
therefrom are deduced the same conclusions, as in 
Aristotle and Plato. In short, all the leading features 
of the philosophy of Socrates are preserved by Xeno- 
, phon ; granting as we always must that he did not 
imderstand the deeper meaning of many a saying, and 
therefore failed to give it the prominence it deserved. 
Now and then for the same reason he used a com- 
monplace expression instead of a philosophical one ; 
for instance, substituting for, ' All virtue is a know- 
ing,' with less accuracy, ' All virtue is knowledge.' 
Nor need we feel surprise that the defects of the 
Socratic philosophy, its popular and prosaic way of 
treating things, the want of system in its method, 
the utilitarian basis of its moral teaching should 
appear more prominently in Xenophon than in Plato 
and Aristotle, considering the brevity with which 
Aristotle speaks of Socrates, and the liberty with 
which Plato expands the Socratic teaching both in 
point of substance and form. On the other hand, 
Xenophon's description is confirmed partly by indi- ' 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


vidual admissions of Plato,^ partly by its inward Chap. 

truth and conformity to that picture which we must 1_ _ 

make to ourselves of the first appearance of Socrates' 
newly discovered principle. All then that can be con- 
ceded to the detractors of Xenophon is, that not fully 
understanding the philosophical importance of his 
teacher, he kept it in the background in his descrip- 
tion, and that in so far Plato and Aristotle are most 
welcome as supplementary authorities. But it can- 
not be allowed for one moment that Xenophon has 
in any respect given a false account of Socrates, or 
that it is impossible to gather from his description 
the true character and importance of the doctrine of 
his master. 

It may indeed be said that this estimate of Xeno- (2) ScMei- 
phon is at variance with the position which Socrates oi^jecHon * 
is known to have held in history. As Schleiermacher o^nmered. 
observes ; ^ ' Had Socrates done nothing but discourse 
on subjects beyond which the Memorabilia of Xeno- 
phon never go, albeit in finer and more brilliant 
language, it is hard to understand how it was, that 
in so many years he did not empty the marketplace 
and the workshop, the public walks and the schools, 
by the fear of his presence ; how he so long satisfied 
an Alcibiades and a Gritias, a Plato, and a Euclid ; 
how he played the part assigned to him in the dia- 
logues of Plato ; in short, how he became the founder 
and type of the philosophy of Athens.' Fortunately 
in Plato himself we have a valuable testimony to the 

» See above, pp. 80 ; 150, 1. « Werke, iii. 2, 259, 287. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




accuracy of Xenophon's description. To what does 
his Alcibiades appeal when anxious to disclose the 
divine element concealed under the Silenus-like 
appearance of the Socratic discourses ? To what 
does his admirable description of the impression 
produced on him by Socrates go back ? ^ What is it 
which to his mind has been the cause of the revolu- 
tion and change in the inner life of Greece ? What 
but the moral observations which in Xenophon form 

> Symp. 216, E. : trw yhp 
itKoico [SctfKfKirovs] iroXi^ fioi fia\- 
\ov ^ rwv Kopvfitani^vrwv ^ re 
Kdkplila in}8^ kcH 8(£icpva iKx^'irau 
vrh ruv \6yMy rS>v roinov. 6pS> 
8^ KoL HlKKovs 'Kaii'w6\Kov5 th 
alnh irdffxovras : this was not 
the case with other speakers, 
oifJik r^opi3iiir6 fiov ^ ^vxh ob^' 
iiyavdicrei &s d.vliffavo^toZas 8ta- 
Kcifi4voVj (similarly Euthydemus 
in Xen. Mem. iv. 2, 39) &X\' 
vnh rovrovf rov Map(r6ov woTiKdKis 
8^ o^w hterfdriVf &<rr€ fjLoi d6^ai 
fi^ fitiorhv etvai ^x^*^^ ^^ ^X^ 
. . . avayKilCei ydp fit buoKoyuv 
Sri iFoXKov ivJit^s &v avrhs It* 
ifMVTOv fihy &juc\» rh 8' ^kBrivaiav 
irpdrra . . . (conf. Mem. iv. 
2 ; iii. 6) vhrovBa 8i jrphs roxnov 
fjuSvov avdp^aVf t oxtK Hv ris 
oioiro iv ifjLol ivuvtUf rh cutrx^- 
ytabai bvrivovv .... Jipav^reino 
ody ahrhv koI <p€vyWf fcai Urav 
X^u ouffx^yofMLi rh afjLo\oyrifi4ya' 
Ka\ iroWdKis fi^v rideas hv tSotjui 
avrhv firj 6ma iv hvQpd^vois * cl 8* 
aS TOVTO yivoirOy e3 oI8' tri vo\h 
fiu(ov &y ikx^olfiriVy fiore obx lx»» 
8 ri xp^f^ofiM. To{nq> r^ av$p^<^. 
lb. 221, D. : Koi ot \6yoi axnov 
6fioi6TaTol €10-1 Tois 'HeiXrivoTs rots 
dtoiyofiivois . . . Zioiyofxivovs 8i 

i8^if &y ris icol ivrhs ahrSov yiyv6- 
ficvos iFpSnov ii\v vovv ^x'"^*"^ 
Mov iiolvovs tipfiiff€i rSov \6yw, 
^etra deiordrous Kcd irXettTT' 
dtyd\fiuT^ ipCTijy iv owrots Ix®*^*** 
K(d iirl wXeTtrrov reivovras, /noA.- 
\ov 5^ ivl vav ttrov vpoaiiKci 
(TKOirtiy r^ ^cAAoyri KoA.^ Ki' 
yoB^ %(rt(reoA, AUtertVs (p. 78) 
objections to the above use of 
these passages resolve them- 
selves into this, that those * ele- 
ments of conversation which 
rivet the soul,' which are not 
altogether wanting in Xeno- 
phon, are more frequent and 
noticeable in Plato, that there- 
fore the spirit of the Socratic 
philosophy comes out more 
clearly in Plato. Far from 
denying this, we grant it 
readily. The above remarks 
are not directed against the 
statement that Plato gives a 
deeper insight than Xenophon 
into the spirit of the Socratic 
teaching, but against Schleier- 
macher's statement that the 
discourses of Socrates were 
essentially different in sub- 
stance and subject matter from 
those reported by Xenophon. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the substance of the Socratic dialogues. These, and Chap. 

these only are dwelt upon by Socrates, speaking in 1__ 

Plato's Apology* of his higher calling and his ser- 
vices to his country ; it is his business to exhort 
others to virtue ; and if he considers the attraction 
of his conversation to consist also in its critical at- 
tempts,^ the reference is to a process of which many 
examples are to be found in Xenophon, that of con- 
vincing people of ignorance in the affairs of their 

The effect produced by the discourses of Socrates B- Ifnpo^-t- 
li . ,, i/.j-ii.-i anceofthe 

need not surprise us, were they only of the kmd re- Soei'atic 

ported by Xenophon. The investigations of Socrates ^/^^^ 

as he gives them, may often appear trivial and in which 

tedious ; and looking at the result with reference to ' 

the particular case, they may really be so. That 

the forger of armour must suit the armour to him 

who has to wear it : ^ that the care of the body is 

attended with many advantages : ^ that friends must 

be secured by kind acts and attention ; ® these and 

such-like maxims, which are often lengthily discussed 

by Socrates, neither contain for us, nor can they have 

contained for his cotemporaries, anything new. The 

important element in these inquiries, however, does 

not consist in their substance, but in their method, • 

> 29, B. ; 38, A. ; 41, E. ^|fT<£f«y. Conf. 33, B. An ex- 

2 Apol. 23, C. : irphs 5i toiJ- ample of such sifting is to be 

TOis oi vioi fioi hraKoXovOovvres found in the conversation of 

oh lidKitrra trxoA^ icnv ol rwv Alcibiades with Pericles, Mem. 

TrXovffuordruv (UnSfxaToi x""^?^^ i* 1> ^O* 

ffiv hKoifovrts ^|cTa^ojucV«v rSov ' Mem. iii. 10, 9. 

Mp^voap, KaX avrol wohXJiKis ifik * Ibid. iii. 12, 4. 

uifjLovvrcu fha hrix^ipovtriv HWovs * Ibid. ii. 10, 6, 9. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, in the fax5t that what was formerly unexplored hypo- 
___J__ thesis and unconscious guesswork, was now arrived 
at by a process of thinking. In making a too minute 
or pedantic application of this method, Socrates 
would not give the same oflFence to his cotemporaries 
as to us, who have not as they to learn for the first 
time the art of conscious thinking and emancipa- 
tion from the authority of blind custom.^ Nay, did 
not the enquiries of the Sophists for the most part 
contain very much less, which notwithstanding their 
empty cavils, imparted an almost electrical shock to 
their age, simply and solely because even in its par- 
tial application, a power, new to the Greek mind, 
and a new method of reflection had dawned upon 
it? Had therefore Socrates only dealt with those 
unimportant topics, upon which so many of his dia- 
logues exclusively turn, his immediate influence, at 
least on his cotemporaries, would still be intelligi- 

These unimportant topics, however, hold a sub- 
ordinate position in Xenophon's dialogues. Even in 
these dialogues the main thing seems to be real in- 
vestigations into the necessity of knowledge, into 
the nature of morality, into the conceptions of the 
various virtues, into moral and intellectual self- 
analysis; practical directions for the formation of 
conceptions ; critical discussions obliging the speakers 
to consider what their notions implied, and at what 
their actions aimed. Can we wonder that such inves- 

* Comp. Hegely Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 59. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


ligations «hould have produced a deep impression on Chap. 

the cotemporaries of Socrates, and an entire change ! 

in the Grreek mode of thought, as the historians una- 
nimously tell us ? ^ or, that a keener vision should 
have anticipated behind those apparently common- 
place and unimportant expressions of Socrates, which 
his biographers unanimously record, a newly dis- 
covered world ? For Plato and Aristotle it was re- 
served to conquer this new world, but Socrates was 
the first to discover it, and to point the way thereto. 
Plainly as we may see the shortcomings of his 
achievements, and the limits which his individual 
nature imposed on him, still enough remains to 
stamp him as the originator of the philosophy of con- 
ceptions, as the reformer of method, and as the first 
founder of a scientific doctrine of morals. 

The relation, too, of the Socratic philosophy to c. His 
Sophistry will only become clear by considering the ^^f^^^" 
one-sided and unsatisfactory element in its method Sophiiftit. 
as well as its greatness and importance. This rela- 
tion as is well known has, during the last thirty years, 
been examined in various directions. There being 
a general agreement previously in accepting Plato's 
view, and looking on Socrates as the opponent of 
the Sophists, Hegel first obtained currency for the 
contrary opinion, that Socrateff shared with the 
Sophists the same ground in attaching importance 
to the person and to introspection.^ In a some- 
what diflferent sense, Grote * has still more recently 

> Conf. p. 80, 1 and 2; 129; 122, 2. « See p. 116. 

* Hist, of Greece, viii. 479, 606. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


c^AP. contradicted the traditional notion of the antithesis 
' between the Socratic philosophy and Sophistry. If 
Sophist means what the word from its history alone 
can mean, a public teacher educating youth for 
practical life, Socrates is himself the true type of a 
Sophist. If on the other hand it denotes the cha- 
racter of certain individuals and their teaching, it 
is an abuse to appropriate the term Sophistry to 
this purpose, or to group together xmder one class 
all the different individuals who came forward as 
Sophists. The Sophists were not a sect or a 
school, but a profession, men of the most varied 
views, for the most part highly deserving and meri- 
torious people, at whose views we have not the 
least reason to take offence. If then, Hegel and 
his followers attacked the common notion of the re- 
lation of Socrates to the Sophists, because Socrates, 
in one respect, agreed with the Sophists, Grrote 
attacks it for the very opposite reason, because the 
most distinguished of the so-called Sophists are at 
one with Socrates. 

Our previous enquiries will have shown, that both 
views have their justification, but that neither is 
altogether right. It is indeed a false view of his- 
tory to contrast Socrates with the Sophists, in the 
same sense that ttue and false philosophy are con- 
trasted, or good and evil: and in this respect it 
deserves notice that in Xenophon, the contrast be* 
tween Socrates and the Sophists is not so great as in 
Plato,^ nor yet in Plato nearly so great as it is drawn 

* Compare Xen. Mem. iv. 4, Phil. d. Griech. Part I., p. 873, 
besides p. 69, 1 and Zeller''8 1, 2. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



by several modem writers.* StiU the results of our 
previous enquiries ^ will not allow of our bringing 
Socrates, as Grote does in his valuable work, into so 
close a connection with men who are grouped to- 
gether imder the name of Sopjiists, and who really 
in their whole tone and method bear so much resem- 
blance to him. The scepticism of a Protagoras and 
Gorgias cannot for a moment be placed on the same 
level with the Socratic philosophy of conceptions, 
nor the Sophistic art of controversy with the Socratic 
sifting of men ; the maxim that man is the measure 
of all things, cannot be compared with the Socratic 
demand for action based on personal conviction,^ 


* Proofs in Protagoras and 
Gorgias, Thaeetet. 151, D. ; 162, 
D. ; 164, D. ; 166, E. ; Rep. i. 
354, A. ; vi. 498, C. 

« Zeller, Part 1. 882, 938. 

• As is done by Ghrote, Plato 
I. 305. Respecting Socrates* 
explanation in Plato's Crito 49, 
D., that he was convinced that 
under no circumstances is 
wrong-doing allowed, it is 
there observed ; here we have 
the Protagorean dogma Horru) 
Mc^ruwra . . . which Socrates 
will be found combating in 
the Thseetetus . . . proclaimed 
by Socrates himself. How un- 
like the two are will however 
be seen at once by a moment's 
reflection on Protagoras' saying, 
Conf. Part I. 899 .. . p. 259, 
535 ; iii. 479. Grote even as- 
serts that not the Sophists but 
Socrates was the chief quibbler 
in Greece ; he was the first to 
destroy the beliefs of ordinary 
minds by his negative criti- 

cism, whereas Protagoras, Pro- 
dicus and Hippias used pre- 
vious authorities as they found 
them leaving untouched the 
moral notions current. U. 410 
and 428 he observes respect- 
ing Plato's statement (Soph. 
232, B.) that the Sophists talk 
themselves and teach others to 
talk of things which they do 
not know, which Socrates did 
all his life long. In so saying, 
he forgets that Socrates in 
examining into the opinions 
of men neither pretends to 
better knowledge himself nor 
is content with the negative 
purpose of perplexing others. 
His aim was rather to substi- 
tute permanent conceptions for 
unscientific notions. He for- 
gets, also, that in the case of the 
Sophists, owing to their want 
of earnest intellectual feeling, 
owing to the shallowness of 
their method, owing to their 
denial of any absolute truth. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

190 S0CEATE8, 


Chap, nor can the rhetorical display of the older Sophists, 
the dangerous and unscientific character of their later 
ethics be lost sight of. As regards the Hegelian 
grouping of Socrates among the Sophists, this has 
called forth a greater opposition than it deserves. 
The authors of this view do not deny that the Socratic 
reference of truth to the person differed essentially 
from that of the Sophists.^ Neither they nor their 
opponents can deny that the Sophists were the first 
to divert philosophy away from nature to morals and 
the human mind, that they first required a basis for 
practical conduct in knowledge, a sifting of existing 
customs and laws, that they first referred to personal 
conviction the settling of truth- and falsehood, right 
and wrong. Hence the dispute with them resolves 
itself into the question. Shall we say that Socrates 
and the Sophists resembled one another, both taking 
personal truth as their ground, but differing in their 
views of personal truth? or that they differed^ the 
nature of their treatment being a different one, 
whilst they agreed in making it relative ? Or to 
put the question in another shape : — There being 
both points of agreement and difference between 
them, which of the two elements is the more impor- 
tant and decisive? Here for the reasons already 
explained, only one reply can be given,* that the 
difference between the Socratic and Sophistic philo- 

together with an incapacity for view. See Part I. 920. 

positive intellectual achieve- * See p. 118, 1. 

ments, those practical conse- * See p. 110, and Part I. 135, 

quences were sure to result 938. 

which soon enough came to 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Sophies far exceeds their points of resemblance. Chap. 

The Sophists are wanting in that very thing which is ' 

the root of the philosophical greatness of Socrates — 
the quest of an absolutely true and universally valid 
knowledge, and a method for attaining it. They 
could question all that had previously passed for 
truth, but they could not strike out a new and surer 
road to truth. Agreeing as they do with Socrates in 
concerning themselves not so much with the study of 
nature, as with training for practical life, with them 
this culture has a diflferent character, and a diflferent 
importance from what it bears with Socrates. The 
ultimate end of their instruction is a formal dexterity, 
the use of which to be consistent must be left to 
individual caprice, since absolute truth is despaired 
of; whereas with Socrates, on the contrary, the ac- 
quisition of truth is the ultimate end, wherein alone 
the rule for the conduct of the individual is to be 
found. Hence in its farther course, the Sophistic 
teaching could not fail to break away from the phi- 
losophy which preceded it, and indeed from every 
intellectual enquiry. Had it succeeded in gaining 
imdisputed sway, it would have dealt the death stroke 
to Greek philosophy. Socrates alone bore in him- 
self the germ of a new life for thought. He alone 
by his philosophical principles was qualified ta be 
the reformer of philosophy.^ 

' Hermann even allows this personal contrast to the So- 

in saying (Plato, i. 232) that phists than from his general 

the importance of Socrates for resemblance to them. Sophis- 

the history of philosophy must try difEered from the wisdom 

be gathered far more from his of Socrates only in the want of a 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap. fruit-beaxing germ. But how is 
IX.- this admission consistent with 

makin g the second period of 

philosophy commence with the 
Sophists instead of with So- 
crates? On the other hand, 
the latest treatise on the ques- 
tion before us {Sieheck, Unter- 
suchung zur Philos. d. Griech, 
p. 1, Ueber Socr.Verhaltniss zur 
Sophistik) is decidedly of the 
opinion here expressed ; and 
likewise most of the later edi- 
tors of the history of Greek phi- 
losophy. Striimpell^ too (Gesch. 
d.Pralit. Phil. d. Griech. p. 26), 
writes to the same effect, al- 

though his view of the So- 
phists differs from ours in that 
he denies a closer connection 
between their scepticism and 
their ethics. He makes the dis- 
tinctive peculiarity of Socrates 
to consist in the desire to 
reform ethics by a thorough 
and methodical intellectual 
treatment, whereas the So- 
phists aspiring indeed to be 
teachers of virtue, accommo- 
dated themselves in their in- 
struction without independent 
inquiry to the tendencies and 
notions of the time. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 






We are now for the first time in a position to form chap. 

a correct opinion of the circmnstances which led to ^- 

the tragic end of Socrates. The actual history of ^ Details 

that event is well known. A whole lifetime had been oft^ac- 

spent in labours at Athens, during which Socrates ui% de- ' 

had been often attacked.^ but never ludicially im- ff^^^^ *^'*; 

^ tence, and 

peached,^ when in the year 399 B.C.,' an accusation death, 

was preferred against him, charging him with WTheac- 

unfaithfulness to the religion of his country, with 

introducing new Grods, and with exercising a harmful 

influence on youth.^ The chief accuser * was Mele- 

tus,® with whom were associated Anytus, one of the 

' Compare besides the Clouds yedvs 9ia^€ipvif rlfirifiu Bduwros, 

of Aristophanes, Xeti. Mem. i. 2, It is clearly an oversight on the 

31 ; iv. 4, 3 ; PlatOy Apol. 32, C. ; part of 6h'otey Plato i. 283, to 

22, E. consider the parody of the in- 

2 PlatOf Apol. 17, D. dictment which Socrates puts 

* See p. 53, 1. into the mouth of his first 

* The indictment, according accusers, as another version of 
to Favorinus in IHog, ii. 40, the judicial ypa^. 

Xen, Mem. (Begin.), PlatOy » See Plato, Apol. 19, B. ; 24, 

Apol. 24, B., was: riJit iyp^aro B. ; 28, A.; Buthyphro, 2, B. 

KoX hvraix6<rafro tHiXirros MeX^ow Max, Tyr. ix. 2, proves nothing 

UirQehs IfioKpdrti 'Xn^povlffKov against this, as Hermann has 

'AXanrcK^Ocv * &8iicc7 laKftdrns, shown, De Socratis Accusatori- 

ot$ fxkv Ti ir6\is yofit(u Beobs w bus. 

vofxlCoov, crcpa Bh Kaiyit 9oufi6via * For the way in which this 

eiffTjyfiiifvos ' iZiK€i 8i ical robs name is written, instead of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




leaders and re-introducers of the Athenian demo- 
cracy,* and Lyco,^ an orator otherwise unknown. The 
friends of Socrates appear at first to have considered 
his condemnation impossible ; ^ still he was himself 

McXtToj, as was formerly the 
custom, see Hermami. It ap- 
pears by a comparison of 
various passages, that the ac- 
cuser of Socrates is neither the 
politician, as Forchhammer 
makes him to be, nor the op- 
ponent of Andocides, with 
whom others have identified 
him, nor yet the poet men- 
tioned by Aristophanes (Frogs, 
1302), but some younger man, 
perhaps the son of the poet. 

• Further particulars about 
him are given by Forchhammerj 
79 ; and Hermann, 9. They 
are gathered from PlatOy Meno, 
90, A. ; Schol. in Plat. Apol. 18, 
B. ; Lysias adv. Dard. 8 ; adv. 
Agorat. 178 ; Isoc, adv. Callim, 
23; PZtt*. Herod, malign. 26, 6. 
p. 862 ; Coriol. c.l4 ; Aristotle in 
Harpokrates v. ScfccC^w ; SchoLin 
iEschin. adv. Tim. § 87 ; Diod, 
xiii. 64. He is mentioned by, 
Xenoph, Hell. ii. 3, 42, 44, as 
well as by Isoorates, 1. c, as a 
leader of the Democratic party, 
together with Thrasybulus. 

* For the various conjectures 
about him consult Hermanny 
p. 12. Besides the above-named 
persons a certain Polyeuctus, 
according to Favorinus in Diog, 
ii. 38, took part in assisting 
the accuser. ProDably "Awros 
ought to be written in this 
passage instead of IloKUwcrosy 
and in the following passage 
UokbwKTOs instead of "Awtoj, 
lloXi^vKTOi being here probably 

a transcriber's mistake for 
noKuKpArT^s, See Hemumny p. 
14. But the words as they 
stand must be incorrect. The 
celebrated orator Polycrates 
is said to have composed the 
speech of Anytus, Diog. 1. c. 
according to Hermippus ; 
Themigt. Or. xxiii. 296, 6; 
QtUntiL ii. 17, 4 ; Hypoth. in 
Lsoc. Busir. ; JEsch. Socrat. 
Epist. 14, p. 84 Or. Suidas, 
UoKvKpd'nis knows of two 
speeches ; and it is proved 
beyond doubt by Isocr, Bus. 4 ; 
j^Uan, V. H. xi. 10, that he 
drew up an indictment against 
Socrates. But it is also clear 
from Favorinus, that this in- 
dictment was not used at the 
trial. Indeed it would appear 
from Favorinus that it was not 
written till some time after 
the death of Socrates. Coni. 
Ueherwegy Gesch. d. Phil. i. 94. 
• This is proved by the Eu- 
thyphro, allowing, as Schteier- 
mockery PI. Werke, i. a, 52, and 
Steinharty Plato's Werke, ii. 191 
and 199 do., that this dialogue 
was hastily penned after the be- 
ginning of the trial, its object 
being to prove that Socrates, 
though accused of impiety, had 
a deeper piety and a keener 
appreciation of the nature of 
piety, than one who had in- 
curred ridicule by his extrava- 
gances, but had nevertheless 
brought himself into the odour 
of sanctity ; a view which, not- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



under no misapprehension as to the danger which 
threatened him.^ To get up a defence, however, went 
contrary to his nature.^ Partly considering it wrong 
and undignified to attempt anything except by 
simple truth ; partly finding it impossible to move 
out of his accustomed groove, and to wear a form of 
artificial oratory strange to his nature, he thought 
trustfully to leave the issue in the hands of Grod, 
convinced that all would turn out for the best ; and 
in this conviction confidently familiarising himself 
with the thought that death would probably bring 
him more good than harm, and that an imjust con- 
demnation would only save him the pressure of^the 
weakness of age, leaving his fair name unsullied.^ 


withstanding Ueberweg's (Un- 
ters. d. Platon. Schrift, 250) 
and Grote's (Plato i. 316) ob- 
jections, appears most probable. 
The treatment of the question 
is too light and satirical for the 
dialogue to belong to a time 
when the fuU seriousness of 
his position was felt. 

* Comp. Xen, Mem. iv. 8, 6 ; 
Plato, Apol. 19, A,; 24, A.; 
28, A. ; 36, A. 

* In Xen, Mem. iv. 8, 6, So- 
crates says that when he wished 
to think about his defence, the 
haufidviov opposed him ; and ac- 
cording to Diog. ii. 40 ; Ci€, de 
Orat. i. 54 ; Quhitil. Inst. ii. 15, 
30; xi. 1, 11; Val. Max. vi. 4, 
2 ; StoK Floril. 7, 56, he de- 
clined a speech which Lysias 
offered him. It is asserted by 
Plato, Apol. 17, B., that he 
spoke without preparation. 
The story in Xenophon's Apo- 
logy, 22, to the effect that 

some of his friends spoke for 
him has as little claim to truth 
in face of Plato's description 
as that in Divg, ii. 41. 

' As to the motives of So- 
crates, the above seems to fol- 
low with certainty from pas- 
sages in Plato, Apol. 17, B. ; 
19, A. ; 29, A. ; 30, C. ; 34, C, 
and Xen. Mem. iv. 8, 4-10. 
Cousin and Grote, however, 
give him credit for a great deal 
more calculation than can be 
reconciled with the testimony 
of history, or with the rest of 
his character. Cousin (CEuvres 
de Platon, i. 68), seems to 
think that Socrates was aware 
that he must perish in the con- 
flict with his age, but he forgets 
that the explanation given in 
Plato's Apology, 29, B., is only 
a conditional one, and that the 
passage in that treatise 37, C, 
was written after the judicial 
sentence. Similarly Volqvard- 

o 2 

Digitized by VjOOQIC " 




(2) Soera- 



Such was the tone of mind which dictated liis 
defence.^ The language is not that of a criminal, 

sen (Damon, d. Sokr. 15), in 
attempting to prove from Mem. 
iv. 4, 4 ; Apol. 19, A., that So- 
crates had predicted his con- 
demnation, forgets that in these 
passages the question is only as 
to probable guesses. Even 
Grote goes too far in asserting, 
in his excellent description of 
the trial (Hist, of Greece, viii. 
654), that Socrates was hardly 
anxious to be acquitted, and 
that his speech was addressed 
far more to posterity than to 
his judges. History only war- 
rants the belief, that with mag- 
nanimous devotion to his cause 
Socrates was indifferent to the 
result of his words, and en- 
deavoured from the first to 
reconcile himself to a probably 
unfavourable result. It does 
not, however, follow that he 
was anxious to be condemned ; 
nor have we reason to suppose 
so, since he could have wished 
for nothing which he considered 
to be wrong, and his modesty 
kept him uncertain as to what 
was the best for himself. See 
PlatOy Apol. 19, A.; 29, A.; 
30, D. ; 35, D. We cannot, 
therefore, believe with Grote, 
p. 668, that Socrates had Veil 
considered his line of defence, 
and chosen it with a full con- 
sciousness of the result ; that 
in his conduct before the court 
he was actuated only by a wish 
to display his personal great- 
ness and the greatness of his 
mission in the most emphatic 
manner; and that by departing 
this life when at the summit 
of his greatness he desired to 

give a lesson to youth the most 
impressive which it was in the 
power of man to give. To pre- 
suppose such calculation on the 
part of Socrates is not only 
contradictory to the statement 
that he uttered his defence 
without preparation, but it 
appears to be opposed to the 
picture which we are accus- 
tomed to see of his character. 
As far as we can judge, his con- 
duct does not appear to be a 
work of calculation, but a . 
thing of immediate conviction, 
a consequence of that upright- 
ness of character which would 
not allow him to go one step 
beyond his principles. His 
principles, however, did not 
allow him to consider results, 
since he could not know what 
result would be beneficial to 
him. It was his concern to 
speak only the truth, and to 
despise anything like corrupt- 
ing the judges by eloquence. 
This may appear a narrow- 
minded view, but no other 
course of conduct would so 
well have corresponded with 
the bearing and character of 
Socrates ; and herein consists 
his greatness, that he chose 
what was in harmony with 
himself in the face of extreme 
danger, with classic composure 
and unruffled brow. 

' We possess two accounts of 
the speech of Socrates before 
his judges, a shorter one in 
Xenophon and a longer one in 
Plato's Apology. Xenophon*s 
Apology is certainly spurious, 
and with it any value attach- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



wishing to save his life, but that of an impartial ar- 
biter, who would dispel erroneous notions by a simple 


ing to the testimony of Her- 
mogenes, to whom the compiler, 
imitating the Mem. iv. 8, 4, 
professes to be indebted for 
his information, is lost. Touch- 
ing Plato's, the current view 
seems well established, that 
this Apology is not a mere 
creation of his own, but that 
in all substantial points it 
faithfully records what Socrates 
said ; and the attempt of Georgii, 
in the introduction to his 
translation of the Apology 
(conf . Steinhart, Platon.Werke, 
ii. 235) to prove the contrary 
will not stand. Georgii com- 
plains that in the Socrates of 
Plato that fityaJ^rjyopla is want- 
ing,which Xenophon commends 
in him— a judgment with which 
few will agree, not even the 
writer of the Apology attri- 
buted to Xenophon. He also 
considers the sophism with 
which the charge of atheism 
was met, improbable in the 
mouth of Socrates, though it 
may just as likely have come 
from him as from one of his 
disciples. He doubts whether 
Socrates could have maintained 
a composure so perfect; al- 
though all that we know of 
Socrates shows unruffled calm 
as a main trait in his character. 
He sees in the prominent fea- 
tures of that character a diplo- 
matic calculation, which others 
will look for in vain. He con- 
siders it incredible that So- 
crates should have begun with 
a studied quotation from the 
Clouds of Aristophanes, aiming 
at nothing else than the refu- 

tation of prejudices, which 
lasted undeniably (according 
to the testimony of Xenophon, 
Mem. i. 1, 11; (Ec. 12, 3; 
Symp. 6, 6) till after his own 
death, and perhaps contributed 
much to his condemnation. 
He misses, with Steinhart in 
Plato, many things which So- 
crates might have said in his 
defence, and did actually say 
according to the Apology of 
Xenophon. But to this state- 
ment no importance can be 
attached, and it is probable 
that in an unprepared speech 
Socrates omitted much which 
might have told in his favour. 
He can hardly be convinced 
that Socrates cross-questioned 
Miletus so searchingly as Plato 
describes ; but this passage 
agrees with the usual character 
of the discourse of Socrates, 
and the sophism by which So- 
crates proved that he did not 
corrupt youth is quite his own. 
See p. 141. That Socrates 
should have met the charge of 
atheism by quibbles, instead of 
appealing to the fact of his 
reverence for the Gods of the 
state, he can only understand, 
by supposing that we have here 
an expression of Plato's reli- 
gious views : although Plato 
would have had no reason for 
suppressing the fact, supposing 
Socrates had really made such 
an appeal: he even describes 
the devotion of his master to 
the Gods of his coimtry, and is 
himself anxious to continue 
that service. Touching the 
sophisms, even Aristotlef Bhet. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


iSmxB, setting forth of the truth, or of a patriot warning 


against wrong-doing and overhaste. He seeks to 
convince the accuser of his ignorance, to refute the 
accusation by criticism. At the same time dignity 
and principle are never so far forgotten as to address 
the judges in terms of entreaty. Their sentence is 
not feared, whatever it may be. He stands in the 
service of God, and is determined to keep his post in 
the face of every danger. No commands shall make 
him feithless to his higher calling, or prevent him 
from obeying Grod rather than the Athenians. 
(3) iRs The result of his speech was what might have 

w^dmna- j^^^^ |^^^ expected. The majority of the judges 
would most unmistakeably have been disposed to 
pronounce him innocent,^ had not the proud bearing 
of the accused brought him into collision with the 
members of a popular tribunal, accustomed to a very 
different deportment from the most eminent states- 
men.' Many who. would otherwise have been on his 

ii. 23 ; iii. 18 ; 1398, a, 16 ; Plato's intention to record 

1419, a, 8, has no fault to find, literally the words of Socrates, 

The same may be said in reply and we may be satisfied with 

to most of the reasoning of comparing his Apology with the 

Georgii. On the contrary, the speeches in Thucydides, as 

difference in style between the Steinhart does, bearing in 

Apology and Plato's usual writ- mind what Thucydides, i. 22, 

ings, seems to prove that this says of himself, — that he had 

Apology was not drawn up with kept as close as possible to the 

his usual artistic freedom, and sense and substance of what 

the notion of Georgii referring was said — and appljring it 

it to the same time as the equally to Plato. Conf . Ueber- 

Phaedo appears altogether in- weffy Unters. d. Plat. Schr. 237. 

conceivable considering the * Xen, Mem. iv. 4, 4. 

great difference between the * Let the attitude of Periclea 

two in regard to their philoso- be remembered on the occasion 

phical contents and their artis- of the accusation of Aspasia^ 

tic form. It certainly was not and that depicted by Plato in 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



side were set against him, and by a small majority ^ Chap. 
the sentence of Guilty was pronounced.^ According ^ 

the Apology, 34, C. Indeed it 
is a well-known fact that judg- 
ing was a special hobbj of 
the Athenian people (oonf. 
Aristophanes in the Wasps, 
Clouds, 207), and that it 
watched with peculiar jealousy 
this attribute of its sove- 
reignty. How Volqtuirdsen, 
Damon, d. Sokr. 15, can con- 
clude from the above words 
that Hegel's judgment respect- 
ing Socrates' rebellion against 
the people's power is shared 
here, is inconceivable. 

* According to Plato, Apol. 
36, A., he would have been ac- 
quitted if 3, or as another 
reading has it, if 30 of his 
judges had been of a different 
mind. But how can this be 
reconciled with the statement 
of Diog, ii. 41 : JcareStK^Oi; 
^MKoffiaxs hyUvtiKovra fjuq, vKeloffi 
4^^015 ruv ii,iro\vov<r&v ? Either 
the text here must be corrupt, 
era true statement of Diogenes 
must have been strangely per- 
verted. Which is really the 
case it is difficult to say. It is 
generally believed that the 
whole number of judges who 
condemned him was 281. But 
since the Heliasa always con- 
sisted of so many himdreds, 
most probably with the addi- 
tion of one deciding voice 
(400, 500, 600, or 401, 501, 601), 
on this hypothesis no propor- 
tion of votes can be made out 
which is compatible with 
Plato's assertion, whichever 
reading is adopted. We should 
have then to suppose with 
Bock, in Siivern on Aristoph, 

Clouds, 87, that a number of 
the judges had abstained from 
voting, a course which may be 
possible. Out of 600 Heliasts, 
281 may have voted against 
and 275 or 276 for him. It is, 
however, possible, as Bockh 
suggests, that in Diogenes, 251 
may have originally stood in- 
stead of 281. In this case 
there might have been 251 
against and 245 or 246 for the 
accused, making together 
nearly 500; and some few, 
supposing the board to have 
been complete at first, may 
have absented themselves dur- 
ing the proceedings, or have 
refrained from voting. Or, if 
the reading rpiducovra, which 
has many of the best MSS. in 
its favour, is established in 
Plato, we may suppose that the 
original text in Diogenes was 
as follows : KartHucaadri Stoico- 
aicus oy9<yfiKoifrai^(t>oiSy f rKeioat 
ruv kKoKvovffSov. We should 
then have 280 against 220, 
together 500, and if 30 more 
had declared for the accused, 
he would have been acquitted, 
the votes being equal. 

' This course of events is not 
only in itself probable, taking 
into account the character of 
the speech of Socrates and the 
nature of the circumstances, 
but Xenophon (Mem. iv. 4, 4) 
distinctly asserts that he would 
certainly have been acquitted 
if he had in any way conde- 
scended to the usual attitude 
of deference to his judges. See 
also Plato, Apol. 38, D. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, to the Athenian mode of procedure, the next thing 
' was to treat of the measure of the penalty. Socrates, 

however, spoke out with undaunted courage : were 
he to move for what he had deserved, he could only 
move for a public entertainment in the Prytaneum. 
He repeated the assurance that he could not on any 
account renounce his previous course of life. At 
length, yielding to the entreaties of his friends, he 
was willing to consent to a fine of thirty minse, be- 
cause he could pay this without owning himself to 
be guilty.^ It may be readily understood that to 
the majority of the judges such language in the ac- 
cused could only appear in the light of incorrigible 
obstinaxjy and contempt for the judicial office ;^ hence 
the penalty claimed by the accusers was awarded — a 
sentence of death.' 
(4) His The sentence was received by Socrates with a 

composure corresponding with his previous conduct. 
He persisted in not in any way repenting of his con- 
duct, frequently expressing before the judges his 
conviction, that for him death would be no misfor- 
tune.* The execution of the sentence being delayed 

* The above is stated on the all the more readily a contrary 
authority of Plato's Apology, effect, if he thought such con- 
in opposition to which the less duct imperative. Nietzsche's 
accurate assertion of Xeno- idea (Sokrates Bas. 1871, p. 17) 
phon, that he rejected any that Socrates, with full con- 
pecuniary composition, and sciousness, carried through his 
that of JDiog, ii. 41, cannot be condemnation to death, appears 
allowed to be of any weight. untenable for the same reasons 

* How distinctly Socrates as the above, 
foresaw this effect of his con- • According to Biog, ii. 42, it 
duct is unknown. It may have was carried by eighty more 
appeared probable to him ; but votes than his condemnation, 
he may siso have anticipated * Plato, Apol. 38, C. 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 


pending the return of the sacred-ship from Delos,^ he Ckap, 

continued in prison thirty days, holding his accus- 
tomed intercourse with his friends, and retaining 
during the whole period his unclouded brightness 
of disposition,^ Flight from prison, for which his 
friends had made every preparation, was scorned as 
wrong and undignified.' His last day was spent in 
quiet intellectual conversation, and when the evening 
came the hemlock draught was drunk with a strength 
of mind so unshaken, and a resignation so entire, 
that a feeUng of wonder and admiration overcame 
the feeling of grief, even in his nearest relatives/ 
Among the Athenians, too, no long time after his 
death, discontent with the troublesome preacher of 
morals is said to have given way before remorse, 
in consequence of which his accusers were visited 
with severe penalties;* these statements, however, 

* Mem.iv.8,2; P^<?,Ph8edo, put Socrates to death, and 
58, A. attacked his accusers, putting 

2 Phsedo, 59, D. ; Mem. 1. c. them to death without a judi- 

* See p. 77, 1. According to cial sentence. Smdas makes 
PlatOj Crito urged him to flight. Vl4\'nroi (Meletus) die by ston- 
The Epicurean Idomeneus, who ing. Pint, de Invid. c. 6, p. 
says it was ^schines {Diog, ii. 538, says that the slanderous 
60 ; iii. 36) is not a trust- accusers of Socrates became so 
worthy authority. hated at Athens that the citi- 

* Compare the Phaedo, the zens would not light their fires, 
account in which appears to be or answer their questions, or 
true in the main. See 58, E. ; bathe in the same water with 
116, A.; Xen, Mem. iv. 8, 2. them, and that at last they 
Whether the statements in were driven in despair to hang 
X&ti, Apol. 28 ; Diog, ii. 35 ; themselves. Diog, ii. 43, conf. 
JEliomy V. H. i. 16, are histori- vi. 9, says that the Athenians 
cal, is a moot point. Those in soon after, overcome with com- 
Stdh. Floril. 5, 67, are certainly punction, condemned Meletus 
exaggerations. to death, banished the other 

* lHodor» xiv. 37, says that accusers, and erected a brazen 
the people repented of having statue to Socrates, and that 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 





I this sen- 
tence of 

(1) Jt WOM 

not the 
the So- 

are not to be trusted, and appear on the whole im- 

The circumstances which brought about the death 
of Socrates are among the clearest facts of history. 
Nevertheless the greatest difference of opinion pre- 
vails aff to the causes which led thereto and the 
justice of his condemnation. In former times it was 

Anytus was forbidden to set 
foot in their city. Themist. 
Or. XX. 239, says : The Athe- 
nians soon repented of this 
deed; Meletus was punished, 
Anytus fled, and was stoned at 
Heraclea, where his grave may 
still be seen. TertuJMcm, 
Apologet. 14, states that the 
Athenians punished the ac- 
cusers of Socrates, and erected 
to him a golden statue in a 
temple. Attg, De Civ. Dei, viii. 
3, reports that one of the ac- 
cusers was slain by the people 
and the other banished for 

' This view, already expres- 
sed by Forchammer (1. c. 66) 
and Grote, viii. 683, appears 
to be the correct one notwith- 
standing Hermann's (I.e. 8, 11) 
arguments to the contrary. 
For though it is possible that 
political or personal opponents 
of Anytus and his fellow-ac- 
cusers may have turned against 
them their action against So- 
crates, and so procured their 
condemnation, yet (1) the au- 
thorities are by no means so 
ancient or so unimpeachable 
that we can depend upon them. 
(2) They contradict one an- 
other in aU their details, not to 
mention Diogenes' anachronism 
respecting Lysippus. And (3) 

the main point is, that neither 
Plato, nor Xenophon, nor the 
writer of Xenophon's Apology 
ever mention this occurrence, 
which they could not have 
failed to regard with great 
satisfaction. On the contrary, 
five years after the death of 
Socrates Xenophon thought it 
necessary to defend him against 
the attacks of his accusers, 
while iEschines appealed to the 
sentence on Socrates without 
dreading the very obvious 
answer, that his accusers had 
met with their deserts. That 
Isocrates is referring to this ' 
occurrence rather than to any 
other (irep2 kinil6iT, 19) is not 
established, nor need the pas- 
sage contain a reference to any 
event in particular. And lastly, 
nothing can be made of the apo- 
crjrphal story coming from some 
editor of Isocrates, to the effect 
that the Athenians, ashamed 
of having put Socrates to 
death, forbad any public men- 
tion of him, and that when 
Euripides (who died seven 
years before Socrates) alluded 
to him in the Palamedes, all the 
audience burst into tears. It 
is only lost labour to suggest 
that these scenes took place at 
some later time, when the play 
was performed. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


thought quite natural to refer it to an accidental out- Chap. 

burst of passion. Were Socrates the colourless ideal of 

virtue he was represented to be by those lacking a 
deeper insight into his position in history, it would in- 
deed be inconceivable that any vested interests could 
have been sufficiently injured by him to warrant a 
serious attack. If then, he was nevertheless accused 
and condemned, what else can have been the cause 
but the lowest of motives — personal hatred ? Now 
who can have had so much reason for hatred as the So- 
phists, whose movements Socrates was so effective in 
thwarting, and who were otherwise supposed to begsa- 
pable of any crime ? Accordingly it must have been 
at their instigation that Anytus and Meletus induced 
Aristophanes to write his play of the Clouds, and after- 
wards themselves brought Socrates to ti:ial. 

This was the general view of the learned in former 
times. ^ Nevertheless its erroneousness was already 
pointed out by Freret.^ He proved that Meletus was 
a child when the Clouds was acted, and that at a 
much later period Anytus was on good terms with So- 
crates ; that neither Anytus can have had anything to 
do with the Sophists — Plato always representing him 
as their inveterate enemy and despiser ' — ^nor Meletus 
with Aristophanes ; ^ and he showed, that no writer 

* Beference to JBruoker, i. • Meno, 92, A. 

549, in preference to any ^ Aristophanes often amuses 

others. himself at the expense of the 

* In the admirable treatise : poet Meletus, but, as has been 
Observations sur les Causes et remarked, this Meletus was 
surquelquesCirconstancesdela probably an older man than 
Condanmation de Socrate, in the accuser of Socrates. See 
the M6m. de I'Acad^mie des Hiemuinn, De Socr. Accus. 5. 
Inscript. i. 47» 6, 209. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, of credit knows anything of the paxt taken by the 


Sophists, in the accusation of Socrates.^. Besides, 
the Sophists, who had little or no political influence 
in Athens,^ could never have procured the condem- 
nation of Socrates. Least of all, would they have 
preferred against him charges which immediately 
recoiled on their own heads.^ These arguments of 
Freret's, after long passing unnoticed,* have latterly 
met with general reception.* Opinions are other- 
wise still much divided, and it is an open question 
whether the condemnation of Socrates was a work of 
private revenge, or whether it resulted from more 
general motives ; if the latter, whether these motives 
were political, or moral, or religious; and lastly, 
whether the sentence was, according to the popular 
view, a crying wrong, or whether it may admit of a 
partial justification.® In one quarter even the length 

» MUan (V. H. ii. 13), the M6in. de I'Acad. i. 47. 6, 1. It 

chief authority for the pre- was therefore unknown to the 

vious hypothesis, knows no- German writers of the last 

thing about a suborning of century, who for the most part 

Anytus by the Sophists. follow the old view ; for in- 

' The political career of Da- stance, MeinerSy Gesch. d. Wis- 

mon, who according to the use senschaft, ii. 476 ; TiedenumHf 

of the Greek language can be Geist d. spek. . Phil. ii. 21. 

called a Sophist, establishes Others, such as Buhle, Gesch. 

nothing to the contrary. d. Phil. i. 372 ; Tennemany 

•Protagorashadbeenindicted Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 40, confine 

for atheism before Socrates, and themselves to stating gene- 

on the same plea Socrates was rally, that Socrates made many 

attacked by Aristophanes, who enemies by his zeal for mo- 

never spared any partizans of rality, without mentioning the 

sophistry. Sophists. 

* The treatise of Fr^ret was * There are a few exceptions, 

written as early as 1736, but such as Heinsiusy p. 26. 
not published tiU 1809, when • Forchhcmmsr: Die Athener 

it appeared together with seve- und Socrates, die Gesetzllchen 

ral other of his writings. See und der Bevolutionar. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



has been reached of asserting with Cato,^ that of all 
sentences ever passed, this was the most strictly legal. 
Among these views the one lying nearest to hand, 
is that of some older writers, who attribute the exe- 
cution of Socrates to personal animosity; always 
giving up the imfounded idea that the Sophists were 
in any way connected therewith.^ A great deal may 
be said in favour of this aspect of the case. In 
Plato,^ Socrates expressly declares that he is not the 
victim of Anytus or Meletus, but of the ill-will which 
he incurred by his criticism of men. Even Anytus, 
it is however said, owed him a personal grudge. 
Plato hints* at his being aggrieved with the judg- 
ments passed by Socrates on Athenian statesmen, 
and, according to Xenophon's Apology,* took it amiss 


(2) It did 
twt pro- 
ceed from, 

may have 
home him 
a grudge. 

» Phst, Cato, c. 23. 

* This is fomid in FrieSy 
Gesch. d. Phil. i. 249, who 
speaks of the ' hatred and envy 
of a great portion of the 
people,' as the motives which 
brought on the trial. Sigwart^ 
Gesch. d. Phil. i. 89, gives pro- 
minence to this motive, and 
BrandiMy Gr. Rom. Phil. ii. a. 
26, wha distinguishes two 
kinds of opponents to So- 
crates, those who considered 
his philosophy incompatible 
with ancient discipline and 
morality, and those who could 
not endure his moral earnest- 
ness, attributing the accusation 
to the latter. Ghote^ viii. 
637, inclines to the same view. 
He proves how unpopular So- 
crates must have made himself 
by his sifting of men. He 
remarks that Athens was the 

only place where it would have 
been possible to carry it on so 
long, and that it is by no 
means a matter for wonder, 
that Socrates was accused and 
condemned, but only that this 
did not happen sooner. If he 
had been tolerated so long, 
there must have been special 
reasons, however, for the accu- 
sation ; and these he is in- 
clined to find partly in his re- 
lations to Critias and Alcibia- 
des, and partly in the hatred of 
» Apol. 28, A. ; 22, B. ; 23, C. 

* Meno, 94 ; in reference to 
which Diog. ii. 38, says of 
Anytus : oSros fhp oh f^ipmv r'bv 
inrh 'XnKpdrovs x^*vaa'fA6v. 

* Compare with this Hegel, 
Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 92; 6lfrate, 
Hist, of Greece, viii. 641. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, that Socrates urged him to give his competent son 


a higher training than that of a dealer in leather, 
thereby encouraging in the young man discon- 
tent with his trade.^ Anytus is said to have first 
moved Aristophanes to his comedy, and afterwards in 
common with Meletus to have brought against him 
the formal accusation.* That such motives came 
into play in the attack on Socrates, and contributed 
in no small degree to the success of this attack is 
antecedently probable.^ To convince men of their 
ignorance is the most thankless task you can choose. 
Anyone who can persevere in it for a life-time so re- 
gardless of consequences as Socrates did, must make 
many enemies ; dangerous enemies too, if he takes for 
his mark men of distinguished position or talents. 
{hyBut Still personal animosity cannot have been the 

tZeb^m s^^® ^^^^ ^^ ^ condemnation. Nor are Plato's 
other statements binding upon us. Indeed the more 

work'to Socrates and his pupils became convinced of the 
lead to his lustice of his cause, the less were they able to dis- 
turn. cover any grounds in feet for the accusation. The. 

one wish of Socrates being to will and to .do what was 
best, what reason could anyone possibly have had for 

* Later writers give more an improbable story ought not 

details. According to Phtt. to have deceived Luzao (De 

Ale. c. 4 ; Amator. 17, 27, p. Socr. Give, 133) ; especially 

762 ; and Satyrus in Athejueus, since Xenophon and Plato 

xii. 534, e, Anytus was a lover would never have omitted in 

of Alcibiades, but was rejected silence such a reason for the 

by him, whilst Alcibiades accusation, 
showed every attention to So- ' JEUanj V. H. ii. 13. Diog, 

crates, and hence the enmity 1. c. 
of Anytus to Socrates. Such ' Compare Orate, 1. c. 638. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


opposing him, except wounded pride ? The narrative Chap. 

of Xenophon's Apology would at most only explain 
the hatred of Anytus ; it would not account for the 
widely spread prejudice against Socrates. It is a 
question whether it is true at all ; and whether, 
granting its truth, this personal injury was the only 
cause which arrayed Anytus as accuser against him.^ 
Lastly, allowing, as was undoubtedly the case, that 
Socrates made enemies of many influential people, is 
it not strange that their personal animosity should 
only have attained its object after the re-establish- 
ment of order in AtheBfs ? In the most imsettled 
and corrupt times no serious persecution had been 
set on foot against him. Neither at the time of the 
mutilation of the Hermae, had his relations with 
Alcibiades ; nor after the battle of ArginusaB,^ had 
the incensed state of popular feeling been turned 
against him. Plato, too, says ^ that what told against 
Socrates at the trial, was the general conviction that 
his teaching was of a dangerous character ; and he 
states that as matters then stood, it was impossible for 
any one to speak the truth in political matters with- 
out being persecuted as a vain babbler and corrupter 

* This is just possible. That Thraaybulus faithful to the 

the character of Anytus was treaties, and not abusing his 

not unimpeachable we gather political power to make amends 

from the story (Aristot. in Har- for his losses during the oli- 

pocration ZtKiduv ; Diodor* xiii. garchical government. 

64; Plut. Coriol. 14), that * The astonishment expres- 

when he was first charged sed by Tenneman at this is 

with treason he corrupted the natural from his point of view, 

judges. On the other hand Only his solution of the diffi- 

Isocr, (in Cailim. 23) praises culty is hardly satisfactory, 

him for being together with • Apol. 18, B. ; 19, B. ; 23, D. 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, of youth.* On this point the testimony of writers sa 

opposite as Xenophon and Aristophanes proves that 

the prejudice against Socrates was not merely a pass* 
ing prejudice, at least not in Athens, but that it 
lasted a whole life-time, not confined only to the 
masses, but shared also by men of high importance 
and influence in the state. Very deeply, indeed, must 
the feeling against Socrates have been rooted in 
Athens, if Xenophon found it necessary six years 
after his death to defend him against the charges on 
which the indictment was framed. 

With regard to Aristophanes, it was an obvious 
blot in his plays to allow here and there such a pro- 
minence to political motives as to forget the claims 
of art, jand for a comedian, who in his mad way holds 
up to ridicule all authorities divine and human, to 
clothe himself with the tragic seriousness of a poli- 
tical prophet.* Yet it is no less an error to lose 
sight of the grave vein which underlies the comic 
license of his plays; and to mistake his occasional 
pathos for thoughtless play. Were it only this, the 
hollowness of the sentiment would soon show itself 
in artistic defects. Instead of this, a sincerity of 
patriotic sentiment may be observed in Aristophanes, 

> Polit. 299, B. ; Eep. vi. 488, both of them justly recognise 

496, C. ; Apol. 32, E. ; Gorg. (Segel, Phanomeno 1. 660; 

473, B. ; 521, D. ^sthetik, 537, 562 ; Botsclisr, 

* Rotscher's spirited descrip- p. 366), that there is an ele- 

tion suffers from this onesided- ment subversive of Greek life, 

ness, and even Hegel, in his quite as much in the comedies, 

passage on the fate of Socrates, of Aristophanes, as in the 

Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 82, is not state of things of which he 

quite free from it, although complains. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



not only in the unsullied beauty of many individual Chap. 
utterances ; ^ but the same patriotic interest soimds 
through all his plays, in some of the earlier ones 
even disturbing the purity of the poetic tone,^ but 
proving all the more conclusively, how near the love 
of his country lay to his heart. 

This interest only could have brought him to give 
to his comedies that political turn, by means of 
which, as he justly takes credit to himself,^ comedy 
gained a far higher ground than had been allowed to it 
by his predecessors. At the same time it must be 
granted that Aristophanes is as much deficient as 
others in the morality and the faith of an earlier 
age,^ and that it was preposterous to demand the 
olden time back, men and circumstances having so 
thoroughly changed. Only it does not follow here* 
from that he was not sincere in this demand. His 
was rather one of those cases so frequently met with 
in history, in which a man attacks a principle in 
others to which he has himself fallen a victim, with- 
out owning it to himself. Aristophanes combats 
innovations in morals, politics, religion, and art. 
Being, however, in his inmost soul the offspring of 
his age, he can only combat them with the weapons 
and in the spirit of this age. With the thorough 
dislike of the narrow practical man unable to give a 

> See p. 29. » Peace, 732 ; Wasps, 1022 ; 

* Compare SchmtzeVy trans- Clouds, 637. 

lation of the Clouds, p. 24, and * Compare i>wyw», Aristoph. 

the passages quoted by him Werke, 2 Aufl. i. 174, which 

from Welcker, Siivem and seems to go too far, 

Digitized by VjO'OQIC 

210 ^^ SOCRATES. 

Chap, thought to anything beyond immediate needs, he 
proscribes every attempt to analyse moral and poli- 

tical motives, or to test their reasonableness or the 
reverse; whilst as a poet he thinks nothing of 
trifling with truth and good manners, provided the 
desired end is reached. He thus becomes entangled 
in the inconsistency of demanding back, and yet by 
one and the same act destroying, the old morality. 
That he committed this inconsistency cannot be 
denied. And what a proof of shortsightedness it was 
to attempt to charm back a form of culture which 
had been irretrievably lost 1 That he was conscious 
of this inconsistency cannot be believed. Hardly 
would a thoughtless scoflFer — which is what some 
would make of him — have ventured upon the danger- 
ous path of attacking Gleon. Hardly would Plato 
have brought him into the society of Socrates in the 
Symposium, putting into his mouth a speech full of 
spirited humour, had he seen in him only a despic- 
able character. If, however, the attack upon Socrates 
is seriously meant, and Aristophanes really thought 
to discern in him a Sophist dangerous alike to reli- 
gion and morality — with which character he clothes 
>n*Tn in the Clouds — then the charges preferred at the 
trial were not a mere pretence, and something more 
than personal motives led to the condemnation of 
(3) Woi lie Do we ask further what those motives were ? All 
^^cT^H- ^^^^ ^® known of the trial and the personal character 
calpaHy? of the accusers only leaves us a choice between two 
alternatives : either the attack on Socrates was 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


directed against his political creed * in particular, or Chap. 

more generally against* his whole mode of thought 
and teaching in respect to morals, religion, and 
politics.^ Both alternatives are somewhat alike, still 
they are not so alike that we can avoid distinguishing 

A great deal may be said in favour of the view, 
that the attack on Socar^Ctes was in the first place set 
on foot in the interest of the democratic party. 
Amongst the accusers, Anytus is known as one of the 
leading democrats of that time,^ The judges, too, 
are described as men, who had been banished and 
had returned with Thrasybulus/ We know, more- 
over, that one of the charges preferred against 
Socrates was, that he had educated Critias, the most 
unscrupulous and the most hated of the oligarchical 
party;* ^schines* tells the Athenians plainly: 
You have put to death the Sophist Socrates, because 
he was the teacher of Critias. Others, too, are found 
among the friends and pupils of Socrates, who must 
have been hated by the democrats because of their 

* This is the view of Fr6ret, Princ. der Bthik. p. 44. Com- 
1. c p. 333, of Dresig in the pare, BauVy Socrates und Chris- 
dissertation De Socrate juste tus, Tiib. Zeitschrift, 1837, 3 
danmato (Lips. 1738), of SU- 128-144. 

vern (notes to Clouds, p. 86) of • See p. 194, 1. 

mUer, Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 30, * Plato, Apol. 21, A, 

and of .?brcAA<M»wi«»' (Die Athe- * Xen. Mem. i. 2, 12; Plato 

ner und Socrates, p. 39). More Apol. 33, A. 

indefinite is Hervuinn^ Plat. i. • Adv. Tim. 173. No great 

36, and Wiffffors, Socr. p. 123. importance can be attached to 

* Hegely Sesch. d. Phil. ii. 81 ; this authority, as the context 
Motscher, p. 266, 268, with shows, ^schines is talking 
special reference to the Clouds as an orator, not as an histor- 
of Aristophanes ; JTerminff, ian. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 




aristocratical sympathies. Such were CJiarmides,^ 
and Xenophon, who was banished from . Athens * 
about the time of the trial of Socrates, perhaps 
even in connection therewith, because of his intimacy 
with Sparta and the Spartans' friend, Gyrus the 
yotmger. Lastly, one of the formal indictments is 
referred to as charging Socrates with speaking dispa- 
ragingly of the democratic form of election by lot,' 
and with teaching his audience to treat the poor with 
insolence,* by so frequently quoting the words — 

Each prince of name or chief in arms approved. 
He tired with praise, or with persuasion moved. 

But if a clamorous vile plebeian rose, 

Him with reproof he check*d, or tam'd with blows.* 

* Gharmides, the uncle of 
Plato, one of the thirty, was, 
according to Xen, Hell. ii. 4, 
19, one of the ten commanders 
at the Peirseus, and fell on 
the same day with Critias in 
conflict with the exiled Athe- 

* Ibrchhcmmer, p. 84 : he 
also mentions Theramenes, the 
supporter of the thirty tyrants, 
who may have been a pupil of 
Socrates without, as Forch- 
hammer will have it, adopting 
the political opinions of his 
teacher. But IHodor., xiv. 5, 
from whom the story comes, is 
a very uncertain authority. 
For Diodorus combines with 
it the very improbable story that 
Socrates tried to rescue Thera- 
menes from the clutches of the 
thirty, and could only be dis- 
suaded from this audacious at- 
tempt by many entreaties. 

Neither Xenophon nor Plato 
mention Theramenes among 
the pupils of Socrates. Neither 
of them mentions an interven- 
tion of Socrates on his behalf, 
as Plato, Apol. 32, C. does in 
another case. In the accusa- 
sation brought against the vic- 
tors at' Arginusae, it was So- 
crates who espoused their cause, 
and Theramenes who by his in- 
trigues brought about their 
condemnation. Pseitdoplut. 
Vit. Decrhet. iv. 3, tells a 
similar and more credible story 
of Socrates. Probably it was 
first told of him and then 
transferred to Socrates. 
» Mem. i. 2, 9. 

* Ibid. i. 2^ 68. 

* Iliad, ii. 188. Ibrchham- 
mer, p. 52, detects a great deal 
more in these verses. He 
thinks that Socrates was here 
expressing his conviction of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Taking all these facts into account, there can be no 
doubt that, in the trial of Socrates, the interests of 
the democratic party did come into play. 

Still these motives were not aU. The indictment 
by no means places the anti-republican sentiments of 
Socrates in the foreground. What is brought against 
him is his rejection of the Grods of his country, and 
his corruption of youth.* Those Gods were, however. 

the necessity of an oligaTchical 
■constitution, and was using 
the words of Hesiod tpyov V 
ob^\v 6v€i9o9 (which the ac- 
cusers also took advantage of), 
.as a plea for not delaying, but 
for striking when the time for 
.action came. The real impor- 
tance of the quotation from 
Homer, he contends, must not 
.be sought in the verses quoted 
by Xenophon, but in those 
omitted by him (11. ii. 192-197, 
203-205) : the charge was not 
brought against Socrates for 
spreading anti-democratic sen- 
timents, which Xenophon alone 
mentions, but for promoting 
the establishment of an oli- 
garchical form of government. 
This is, however, the very op- 
posite of historical criticism. 
If Forchhammer relies upon the 
statements of Xenophon, how 
can he at the same time assert 
that they are false in most im- 
portant points? And if on 
the other hand he wishes to 
strengthen these statements, 
how can he use them to up- 
hold the view, by which he 
condemns them? He has, 
however, detected oligarchical 
tendencies elsewhere, where no 
traces of them exist. For in- 

stance, he enumerates not only 
Critias but Alcibiades among 
the anti-democratical pupils of 
Socrates ; and he speaks of the 
political activity of Socrates 
after the battle of Ai^inusas 
by remarking that the oli- 
garchs elected on the council 
board theii* brethren in politi- 
cal sentiments. It is true the 
levity of Alcibiades made him 
dangerous to the democratic 
party, but in his own time he 
never passed for an oligarch, 
but for a democrat. See Xen, 
Mem. i. 2, 12 ; Thue. viii. 63, 
48 and 68. With regard to the 
condemnation of the victors of 
Arginusae, Athens had then not 
only partially, as Forchhammer 
says, but altogether shaken off 
the oligarchical constitution of 
Pisander. This may be gathered 
from FrerefVz remark, 1. c. p. 
243, from the account of the 
trial {X&n, Hell. i. 7), as well 
as from the distinct statement 
of PUto (Apol. 32, C. : koX 
ravra fihv ^v It* Sr)fxoKparovfi4ifris 
rrjs ir6\i»5) ; not to mention 
the fact that these generals 
were decided democrats, and 
hence could not have been 
elected by oligarchs. 

' Pto^o, Apol, 24, B.p.l93, 4. 



(4) ^ema4 
of more 

(a) Tits 
were net 
elemetit in 
Ms teach- 
ing ojily. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

214 80CRATE& 

Chap, not only the Grods of the republican party, but the 


Grods of Athens. If in some few instances, as in the 
trial for the mutilation of the Hermse, insult to the 
Gods was brought into connection with attacks on a 
republican constitution, the connection was neither a 
necessary one, nor was it named in the indictment of 
Socrates. Further, as regards the corruption of 
youth,* this charge was certainly supported by the 
plea that Socrates instilled into young men contempt 
for republican forms of government and aristocratic 
insolence, and also that he was the teacher of Critias. 
But the training of Alcibiades was also laid to his 
charge, who had injured the city by republican 
rather than by aristocratic opinions. A further 
count was, that he taught sons to despise their 
fathers,^ and said that no wrong or base action need 
be shimned if only it be of advantage.* 
(J) But Herefrom it would appear that not so much the 

extended political character in the narrower sense of the term, as 

tottsmoi'al \ IT-,. 1 ' n 1 - 

and re- the moral and religious character of his teaching was 
&driSL« the subject of attack. The latter aspects exclusively 
draw down the wrath of Aristophanes. After all the 
ancient and modern discussions as to the scope of the 
Clouds,* it may be taken for established that the So- 
crates of this comedy is not only a representative 
—drawn with a poet's license— of a mode of thought 

' Mem. i. 2, 9. opinions. Since then, Droysen 

* Xen, Mem. i. 2, 49 ; Apol. and Schnitzer, Forchhammer, 
20 and 29. p. 26, and Kochly, Akad. Vortr. 

» Mem. i. 2, 56. 1, have further gone into the 

* Hotsoher (Aristophanes, p. question. 
272) gives a r^ew^f previous 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


which Aristophanes knew to be foreign to the real Chap. 

man ; * nor yet was only a general attack thereby 
intended on the fondness for metaphysical subtleties, 
and the absurdity of sophistry and useless learning ; 
but the play was distinctly aimed at the philosophic 
tendency of Socrates. Just as little can it be sup- 
posed, after what has been said, that this attack 
proceeded only from malice or from personal animo- 
sity ; Plato's description in the Symposium puts this 
out of the question. Beisig's ^ and Wolfs * opinions 
are also untenable. Seisig distributes the traits 
which Aristophanes assigns to Socrates, between 
himself and the whole body of his pupils, Euripides * 
in particular; still the spectators could not do 
otherwise than refer them all to Socrates; hence 
Aristophanes must have intended this reference. 
Wolf supposes that the portrait drawn in the Clouds 
is of Socrates in his younger years, when he was 
given to natural philosophy. But the very same 
charges were repeated against him eighteen years 
later in the Frogs;* and we gather from Plato's 
Apology ^ that the current view of Socrates and his 
teaching up to the time of his death agreed substan- 
tially with that of Aristophanes ;. not to mention the 

' As is assumed by G. Her' Similarly Vcm Setude, Charac- 

numn, Frsef. ad Nubes, p. terismi, p. 19, 24. Conf. Wig- 

33, 11, and by others. Com- ^ers' Sokr. p. 20. pRf 

paxe, on the other hand, Riit- * Who was 10 years^ older 

scheTf p. 294, 273, 307, 311; than Socrates, and certainly 

Suvern, p. 3. not his pupil, although possAly 

* Prssf . ad Nubes ; Rhein. an acquaintance. 
Mus. ii. (1828) i. K. S. 191. * Frogs, 1491. 

• In his translation of the • See p. 18. 
Clouds, see Ratsoher, 297. 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 

216 80CRATE8. 

Chap, fact that Socrates probably never was a lover of 

natural philosophy, and that in the Clouds he is 

attacked as a Sophist^ rather than as a natural 
{6) ThAi U Aristophanes must, then, really have thought to 
^th7paH disceni in the Socrates whom the history of philoso- 
assigned to phv sketches features deserving his attack. Saying 
the Clotidt. this, however, is, of course, not saying that he did 
not caricature the historical figure, consciously 
attributing, to it many really foreign features. For 
all that, we may suppose that the main features in 
his pictiure agreed with the idea he had formed to 
himself of Socrates, and also with common opinion. 
Siivem, therefore, in supposing ^ that the Socrates of 
the Clouds is not meant for an individual, but for a 
symbol, and that the poet's attack was not aimed at 
Socrates, but at the sophistic and rhetor^l^hooj^ 
general,' cannot be right. Far from it, Boer 
made to be the champion of sbpBislry, because in 
Aristophanes' mind he really was that ; the poet be- 
lieved that, taken in his public capacity, he was 
really the dangerous innovator he represents him to 
be. Not a single line of his picture has an exclu- 
sively political colour. Independently of some 
things which are obviously not seriously meant,* the 
charges against him are threefold, his being occupied 

* Clouds, 98. at Alcibiades, who is concealed 
1 In the treatise already le- under the name of Phidippides. 

fenred to, pp. 19, 26, 30, 65. See, on the contrary, Droygei^ 

* Not to mention the false p. 180 ; Sehniizcry p. 34. 
opinion, which however is sup- * Such as the calculation of 
ported hjHwizberg (Alcibiades, flea- jumps. 

p. 67), that the play was aimed 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


with useless physical and intellectual subtleties,^ his Chap. 
rejecting the Gods of the city,* and what is the 

comer-point of the whole play, his sophistic facility 
of speech, which can gain for the wrong side the 
victory over the right, and make the weaker argu- 
ment the stronger.^ In other words, the impractical, 
irreligious, and sophistical elements in the Socratic 
teaching are attacked ; there is not a word about his 
anti-republican tendency, which Aristophanes, we may 
suppose, had he observed, would before all things have 
exposed. Even at a later time,* Aristophanes brings 
no other complaints against Socrates than these. 
Only these points, too, according to Plato, constituted 
the standing charges against Socrates, causing him 
special danger.* And there is every reason for be- 
lieving his assurance. 

If then the impeachment of Socrates has, never- (<?) Soora- 
theless, been set down to a political motive, how can f^ji^'d 

this admission be made to agree with the previous ''^ ^^^V 

" * oeoaiise of 

his anti- 

* 143-234, 636. stronger as to the actual re- - , , 

« 365-410. suit,— giving to an unjust act *^'*» ^* 

•Clouds, 889. Draysen, the colour of justice. as bemoan 

Clouds, p. 177, unfairly blames * Frogs, 1491. ^^^V f 

this play for making a stronger * Apol, 23, D. : xiyovcw, &s *^ ^^^ 

argument into a right one. liwKpdTrjs ris 4ffri fuapirofros K<d ^^ time. 

The \6yos Kp^lrrwv is the really ^la/pBtip^i ro\ts v4ovs • KtX iveiBdv 

stronger case in point of jus- ns avrohs 4pwT^^ 5 ri voi&y koI 6 

tioe, according to the original n ^iBdtrKwVf tx'^wri fikv oh^^v 

meaning of the word {Xenoph, ciVcty, &XA.* kyvoovtnv, %va 8^ ii^ 

(Ec. ii. 25 ; Arist, Bhet. ii. 24), ^oKSknv hvop^tv, rh Kara irdvrtav 

which is however thrown into r&v ^t\oa'o<f>o{>»r»y irpSx^tpa tou- 

the shade by the X^os fyrrmv ; ra Xdyowny, tri rU fi^riupa koL 

and what is meant by rhv lir^oa rh (nrh t^s, k(CL &€ohs fiii vonlCeiv 

kiyov Kpelrrw irotcti^ is, making Kcttrhv VjrrwKdyovKpttTrof iroieiv, 

the case which in point of jus- Ibid. 18, B. 
tice is weaker, to be the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



OoAp. statement ? The true answer to this question has 
been already hinted at by other writers,^ The con- 
viction of the guilt of Socrates rested on the assumed 
dangerous character of his teaching for morality and 
religion ; the reason that this oflFence was judicially 
prosecuted lay without doubt in the special political 
circumstances of the time. The rationalism of the 
Sophists was neither the sole nor the chief cause of 
the fall of Athens in the Peloponnesian war ; still it , 
contributed immistakeably to that result, and the op- 
ponents of the new culture were naturally disposed to 
make its guilt out to be greater than it really was. 
Had not the schools of the Sophists sent forth not a 
few of the modem statesmen, who either as the leaders 
of oligarchy or democracy had torn the state to pieces ? 
Was not in those schools a corrupt form of morality 
publicly taught, which substituted the wishes and 
caprice of the individual in place of existing custom 
and religion, put gain in the place of right, and 
taught men to desire absolute sovereignty as the 
summit of human happiness? Were not those 
schools the cradle of an unscrupulous eloquence, 
which employed a variety of technical tricks for any 
purpose, no matter what, considering it the highest 
triumph to make the wrong side the winning side ? 
Can we then wonder that Aristophanes thought the 
new-fengled education responsible for all the misfor- 
tunes of the commonwealth ; * that Anytus in Plato 

> J2i««r, p. 31. Ma/rbcbch, « Clouds, 910; Knights, 1373, 
(}esch. d. Phil. i. 186, 9 ; and Further details in SUvem^ 
Sch/wegler, Gesch. d. Phil. 30. Clouds, 24. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



cannot find terms strong enough to express his Cb^p. 
horror of the pernicious influence of the Sophists ; ^ 
that all friends of the good old time believed that in 
Sophistry lay the chief malady of the state; and 
that this feeling was intensified during the last years 
of the Peloponnesian war, and under the oligarchial 
reign of force ? Was it then other than natural that 
those who had rescued Athens from the oligarchy, 
re-establishing with the old constitution her political 
independence, should wish by suppressing the educa- 
tion of the Sophists to stop the evil at its source. 
Now Socrates passed not only for a teacher of the 
modem Sophistic school, but the evil efifects of his 
teaching were thought to be seen in several of his 
pupils, among whom Critias and Alcibiades were 
prominent.^ What more intelligible under such 
circumstances, than that just those who were bent 
upon restoring a popular form of government, and 
the ancient glory of Athens, should see in him a 
corrupter of youth, and a dangerous citizen ? Thus 
he certainly fell a victim to the republican reaction 
which set in after the overthrow of the thirty tyrants. 
For all that his political views were not in them- 
selves the principal motives which provoked the 
attack. His guilt was rather supposed to consist in 
the subversion of ancestral customs and piety, of 
which the anti-republican tendency of his teaching 

> Meno, 91, C. proved by Xen, Mem. i. 2, 12, 

* How largely this circnm- as well as by the above-men- 

htance contributed towards the tioned authority, iEschines. 

condemnation of Socrates is 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




C. Juftice 



(1) Uh- 

(a) In re- 
his teach- 
inff, l^e, 
and influ- 

was partly an indirect consequence, partly an isolated 

How then does it really stand touching the jus- 
tice of this accusation ^ and of the sentence to which 
it led ? And what must be thought of the modem 
attempts to justify it? Most of the charges which 
were preferred against Socrates, rest undeniably on 
misunderstandings, perversions, or fiilse inferences. 
Socrates is said to have rejected the Gods of the 
state. We have already seen this statement contra- 
dicted by all historical testimonies.* He is said to 
have substituted his haifiovvov in their place. We, 
however, likewise know that he neither put it in 

" It is well known that Hegel 
has defended it on the side of 
Greek law, and Dresig, a hun- 
dred years earlier, maintained 
in a very superficial treatise, 
that Socrates, as an opponent 
of a republican government, 
had been justly condemned. 
Forchhammer goes a great deal 
further in his treatise, and so 
does D6nis. See p. 178, 3. 
Eochly, on the other hand, 
confines himself, in Acad. Vortr. 
i. 382, to the assertion that in 
the indictment of Socrates 
guilt was equaUy divided and 
reduced to a minimum on 
either side. The answer of 
Heinsius to Forchhammer (So- 
crates nach dem Grade seiner 
Schuld. Lips. 1839) is unimpor- 
tant, and the learned Apologia 
Socratis contra Meliti redivivi 
Calumniam, by P. van Limburg 
Brouwer (Gron, 1838), is de- 
ficient in insight into the 
general questions involved, and 

is inferior to. the treatise of 
Preller (Haller, A. L. Z. 1838, 
No, 87), although many of its 
details are valuable. Imzoc, 
de Socrate cive 1796, despite 
his usual learning, does little 
for the question. Grote's re- 
marks, on the other hand, 
touching the extenuating cir- 
cumstances, which, without 
altogether justifying, excuse 
the condemnation of Socrates, 
are deserving of all attention. 
ChotCy Hist, of Greece, viii. 
678, 653. 

* Forchhammer repeats the 
charge without proof, as if its 
truth were obvious of itself, 
and he speaks of orthodoxy and 
heresy like a modem theolo- 
gian. But a Greek thought 
far less of belief than of out- 
ward service, and hence Xeno- 
phon, Mem. i. 1, 2, refutes the 
charge by an appeal to the fact 
that he had sacrificed to the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the place of the Gods, nor sought thereby to encroach Chap. 
on the ground of oracles.^ It was a private oracle ___^ 
in addition to those publicly recognised ; and in a 
country where divine revelations were not the exclu- 
sive property of the priesthood, a private oracle could 
be. refused to no one.^ He is said to have been de- 
voted to the atheistic, heavenly wisdom of Anaxa- 
goras,^ although he expressly declared it to be absurd.* 
He is said according to Aristophanes to have given 
instruction in the Sophistic art of oratory — a charge 
so untrue, that to all appearances even Meletus did 
not venture to prefer it. He is blamed for having 
been the teacher of Critias and Alcibiades, to which 
charge even Xenophon justly replied* that these 
men did not learn their vices from Socrates, nor 
degenerate, until after being separated from him. 
Allowing, too, that a teacher must instil into his 
pupils a lasting turn for the good,^ is it necessarily 
his fault if he does not succeed in some few cases ? 

* Compare p. 76, 7 ; 89 ; 149, Leben und Schrif ten, p. 480). 
1 ; 178. If Forchhammer considers it 

2 Xenophon therefore appeals incredible that Meletus should 
to the ^MyL6viov (Mem. i. 1, 2) have given such a careless 
in good faith as a proof of reply to Socrates, he forgets 
Socrates* belief in the Gods, that it is always the way of 
and Plato compares his revela- the world to confound relative 
tions with the prophecies of with positive atheism, doubts 
Euthyphro (Euthyphro, 3, B). about particular religious no- 
It is indeed known, from other tions with the denial of all re- 
sources, how much private di- ligion. This is quite universal 
vination was practised, besides in the nations of antiquity, 
appealing to public oracles. and therefore the early Christ- 

• Not only Aristophanes but ians were called &Qwi, 
Meletus brings this charge * See p. 135, 1. 
against him in Plato, Apol. 26, ^ Mem. 1. 2, 12, 

C, p. 10, like Ast (Platen's • Forchhammer, p. 43. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap. The value of any instruction can only be estimated 
by its collective effects, and these bear as bright a 
testimony to the value of the instruction of Socrates 
as can be wished. A man whose beneficial influence 
not only reached to many individuals,^ but by whom 
a new foundation for morals was laid which served 
his people for centuries, was, as a matter of course, 
no corrupter of youth. If further the verses of 
Hesiod, by which Socrates sought to promote useful 
activity are alleged against him ; ^ Xenophon has con- 
clusively proved that an ill use has been made of these 
verses. If lastly, he has been accused of teaching 
men to despise parents and relations, because he 
maintained that only knowledge constituted worth ; ' 
surely this is a most unfair inference from principles, 
which had a simple meaning in his mouth. Any 
teacher who makes his pupil understand that he 
must learn something in order to become a useful 
and estimable man, is surely quite in order. Only 
the rabble can bear the teacher a grudge for making 
sons wiser than their fathers. Very different would 
it have been had Socrates spoken disparagingly of 
the ignorance of parents, or set lightly by the duty 
of children ; but from so doing he was far removed.* 

* Plato's Apol. 33, D., men- foUow his training rather than 
tions a whole string ; also that of their parents. This 
Xen, Mem. i. 2, 48, fact Xenophon's Apology al- 

> Mem. 1. 2, 56 ; PlatOy Char, lows, and attempts to justi- 

163, B. Conf. p. 212, 4. fy. But in order to decide 

* Mem. i, 2, 49. whether it is an established 

* Conf. Mem. ii. 2, 3. A fact, and whether Socrates is 
further charge is connected here to blame, it is indeed 
with the above, viz., that he quite possible we need a more 
induced many young men to trustworthy authority, and we 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


It might be replied that one who judged the value of Chap. 


a man simply and solely by his knowledge, and who at 
the same time found all wanting in true knowledge, 
was making his pupils self-conceited, and teach- 
ing them to consider themselves above all authority 
by their own imaginary knowledge. But whilst 
with partial eye overrating the importance of know- 
ledge, Socrates avoided this practically harmful in- 
ference by above all endeavouring to make his friends 
conscious of their own want of knowledge, and laying 
no claim to knowledge himself, but only professing 
to pursue it. No fear that any one imbued with 
this spirit of humility and modesty, would misuse 
the Socratic teaching. For its misconstruction and 
for the consequences of a superficial and defective 
conception of it Socrates is as little responsible as 
any other teacher. 

Of more moment is another point touched upon (V) 
in the judicial proceedings — ^the relation of Socrates affedltL 
himself to the Athenian democracy. As is well his pan- 
known, Socrates considered the existing constitution wcurds tJie 
a complete failure.^ He would not have the power **^^' 
in the state awarded by lot or by election, but by the 
qualification of the individuals ; and he occasionally 
expressed opinions respecting the masses who thronged 
the Pnyx and filled the theatre at assemblies of the 
people containing no doubt a great deal of truth, 

ought to know the circmn- son against his father, but 

stances better. In the single urged the father to give him 

case there mentioned, that of a better education, or else ex- 

the son of Anytus, the truth pressed himself to a third party 

of which appears doubtful, So- to that effect, 

crates probably did not set the ' See p. 167. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, but coming very near to treason against the sove- 


reignty of the people.^ It was natural that his 
accusers should make use of such expressions, and 
that they should not be without influence on the 
judges. Still a free censure of existing institutions 
is by no means treason. Some G-recian states may 
have confined the liberty of speech within very 
narrow limits, but at Athens the freedom of thought 
and of speech was unlimited ; it formed, an integral 
portion of the republican constitution ; the Athenian 
regarded it as an inalienable right and was proud to 
be herein distinguished from every other state.* In 
the time of the most violent party quarrels there is 
no instance of interference with either political views 
or political teaching. The outspoken friends of a 
Spartan aristocracy could openly stick to their 
colours, so long as they refrained from actual attacks 
on the existing state of things ; and was Socrates 
not to be allowed the same privilege ? ' 

* In the shape of actual deeds nothing, however^ 
could be laid to his charge. He had never trans- 

* In Mem. iii. 7, Socrates at- E. : D&mogth. in Androt. p» 
tempts to relieve Charmides of 603 ; Fnnebr. 1396. 

his dread of appearing in pub- ' Grote's reference to the 

lie by reminding him, that the Platonic state, 1. c. p. 679, in 

people whom he is afraid of, which no freedom of indivi- 

consist of peasants, shoemakers, dual opinion was allowed, is 

pedlars, &c., and therefore do not altogether to the point* 

not deserve such consideration. The fundamental ideas of 

The charge preferred by the Plato's state are different to 

accuser, Mem. i. 2, 58, that those then prevailing in Athens, 

Socrates thought it was reason- Plato^ Rep. viii. 657, B., reckons 

able for the rich to abuse the freedom of speech among the 

poor, is clearly a misrepresen- evils of a democracy, a type of 

tation. which was the Athenian form 

» Compare Plato, Gorg. 461, of government. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



gressed the laws of the state. His duties as a citizen Chap. 
had been conscientiously fulfilled. His avowed 
opinion was that man must live for the state and 
obey its laws. He was no partizan of the oligarchical 
faction. On the contrary, he had twice hazarded his 
life,^ once to rescue the victors at Arginusse — good 
democrats — from the extrajudicial mercies of an in- 
furiated populace, the other time to prevent an 
unjust command of the thirty tyrants from being 
carried out.* His school, too, in as far as it can be 
called a school, had no decided political bias. If 
the greater number of his pupils were taken from 
the upper classes,* and hence probably belonged to 
the aristocratic party, one of his most intimate 
friends* was amongst the companions of Thrasybu- 
lus ; most of his adherents however seem to have 
taken no decided line in politics. A charge of 
political inactivity has been brought against him in 
modern times. On this head, diflferent judgments 
may be passed on him from diflferent points of views. 
From om* side we can only praise him for continuing 
faithful to his higher calling, not wasting his powers 
and his life on a career, in which he would have 
attained no success, and for which he was unfitted. 
But whatever view may be taken, it is certainly not 
a punishable oflfence to avoid a statesman's career ; 
least of all to avoid it under the conviction that you 
can do more good to the state in other ways. To 

> Xef^. i. 1, 17. ' • Plato, Apol. 23, C. See p. 

« See pp. 66; 67; 148; 176. 
166. * Chserephon, ibid. 21, A. 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap, help the state in his own way was to Socrates an 

object of the highest and deepest interest.^ His 

political theories may not have corresponded with 
existing institutions, but his character as a citizen 
must be admitted to be pure ; and according to the 
laws of Athens, he was guilty of no crime against the 
(2) ReU' Nor were the political views of Socrates the only 

*^^1^^^ things which gave offence. His whole position was, 
theory to as Hegel has so well indicated,'* at variance with the 
moralify. ground occupied by the old Greek morality. The 
moral life of Greece, like every national form of life, 
rested originally on authority. It relied partly on 
the unquestioned authority of the laws of the state, 
and partly on the all-powerful influence of custom 
and training, which raised general convictions to the 
rank of written laws of God, traceable by no one to 
a definite origin. To oppose this traditional morality 
was regarded as a crime and conceit, an offence 
against God and the commonweal. To doubt its 
rightfulness never occurred to any one, nor was 
indeed permitted ; and for this reason, the need of 
an enquiry into its foundations, of proving its 

* Compare p. 65. rights. But this law had long 
' At an earlier period it fallen into disuse, if indeed it 
might have given offence, that had ever been in force ; and 
Socrates appeared to hold aloof who can blame Socrates for re- 
from the political questions of maining neutral when he could 
his time, and an appeal might conscientiously side with none 
have been made to the old law of the conflicting parties ? Per- 
of Solon, Pha. Sol. c. 20 ; Arist. haps it was a political narrow- 
in GeU. N. A. ii. 12, 1, threaten- ness, but it was not a crime, 
ing neutrals in case of an in- ' Oesch. d. Phil. ii. 81. 
temal quamel with loss of civil 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


necessity, or even of supporting it by personal intro- Chap. 
spection, was never felt. ' 

Socrates, however, demanded such an enquiry, (a) Per- 

He would allow nothing to be believed, and have no^ ^^mction 

thinff done, imtil men were first fully convinced of its «**^*- 
rrr J- -CI !_• .X . X 1. X tutedfor 

truth or expediency. For him it is not enough to deference 

have a rule, universally recognised and legally estab- ^*«**^- 
lished, but the individual must think out each subject 
for himself^ and discover its reasons : true virtue and 
right action are only possible when they spring from 
personal conviction. Hence his whole life was spent 
in examining the current notions touching morals, in 
testing their truth, and seeking for their reasons. 
This examination brought him in nearly all points to 
the same results as those which were established 
by custom and opinion. If his notions were in many 
respects clearer and sharper, this advantage was one 
which he shared in common with the best and wisest 
of his contemporaries. Nevertheless, tried by the 
standard of the old Greek morality, his position seenas 
very critical. In the first place the ordinary morality, 
and tiie received rules of conduct resting on authority 
and tradition, were by him deprived of their chief 
value. In comparison with knowledge, and the con- 
scious virtue of Socrates, they were so much depre- 
ciated, that not only was the self-love of individuals 
hurt, but the actual validity of the laws of the state 
was called in question. If man has only to foUow his 
own convictions, he will agree with the popular will 
only when, and in as far as, it iagrees with his convic- 
tions. If the two come into collision, there can be 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 




(J) Len 
anee at- 
tached to 

no doubt as to which side he will espouse. This 
principle is candidly avowed by Socrates in his de- 
fence, in his celebrated declaration that he would 
obey Grod rather than the Athenians.^ And thus his 
views stand, even in theory, in sharp and irreconcile- 
able contradiction to the older view. It was impos- 
sible therefore to guarantee, indeed it was highly 
improbable that there would be, a perfect agreement 
between the two in their results, and as a matter of 
fact, Socrates by his political views was undeniably 
opposed to the existing form of constitution.^ 

There can moreover be no mistaking the fact, 
that the whole character of the Socratic philosophy 
is at variance with the preponderance given to politi- 
cal interests, without which the Greek states could 
never, considering their limited range, have achieved 
greatness. The duty of the individual towards the 
community was indeed recognised by Socrates to its 
full extent. Even his friends he urged to devote 
their attention to public affairs when any of them 
showed ability for the task,^ and in keeping back 
from public life those who were young * and unformed, 
he acted meritoriously from the point of view of 
ancient Greece. Still the maxim that man must be 
clear about himself, and be sure of his own moral 
well-being before meddling with that of others and 
with the community;* the conviction of Socrates 
that a political career was not only alien to his own 

i Plat, Apol. 29, C. 
« See p. 167 and 223. 
» See p. 167, 3. 

* Mem. iii. 6 ; iv. 2 ; Plato, 
Symp. 216, A. 
» Plato, 1, c. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


character, but impossible, in the then state of things, Chap. 

to a man of integrity ; ^ the whole inward turn given 

to thought and pursuits, the demand for self-know- 
ledge, for moral knowledge, for self-training— all this 
could not but weaken in himself and his pupils the 
incUnation for political life* It could not fail to 
make the moral perfection of the individual the main 
point, while reducing activity for the state — that 
highest and most immiediate duty of a citizen accord- 
ing to the ancient view — to a subordinate and de- 
rivative rank* 

And, lastly, if the charge of rejecting his country's (c) His 
Grods was, as he believed, unjustly preferred against ^^^^^^ 
Socrates, still his theory, it must be admitted, was an of reunion. 
extremely perilous one, as was seen in the case of 
Antisthenes, when once the Socratic demand for 
knowledge was developed to its consequences, and 
religious notions were similarly dealt with in order 
to discover what people understood thereby. This is 
true also of his Baifwviop. As a kind of oracle it had 
indeed a place on the ground of the Greek faith, but 
by its internal character it made the decision depend 
on the subject instead of depending on external por- 
tents. And yet how dangerous was this proceeding 
in a country in which oracles were not only a religious 
but a political institution I How easily might others 
be led to imitate the example of Socrates, taking 
counsel, however, with their own understanding in- 
stead of with an undefined inward feeling, and thus 
thinking little of belief in the Gods or of their utter- 
> Plato, Apol. 31, C. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Crap. ances I We may indeed be convinced that Socrates 
was in all these points right in the main, and it is 
quite true that he was the precursor and founder of 
our moral view of the world ; but how could this new 
idea of right be admitted by any one who shared the 
traditions of the ancient Greek world ? How could 
a state built upon these traditions allow such an idea 
to be spread, without commiting an act of suicide ? 
Even remembering, then, that Socrates laboured and 
taught in his simple manner, not in the Sparta of 
Lycurgus, but in Athens and amongst the generation 
that had fought at Marathon, we shall still find it 
quite natural for the state to endeavour to restrain 
his action. For Athens was absolutely ignorant of 
that freedom of personal conviction, which Socrates 
required, nor could she endure it.* In such a com- 
munity the punishment of the innovator can cause 
no surprise. For was not a dangerous doctrine, ac- 
cording to old notions, a crime against the state ? 
And if the criminal resolutely refused to obey the 
sentence of the judges, as Socrates actually did, 
how could the penalty of death fail to follow ? To 
one therefore starting from the old Grreek view of 
right and the state, the condemnation of Socrates 
cannot appear to be unjust.^ 

* To say that the line adop- which was, it is true, an insti- 

ted by Socrates was not opposed tution later than Solon's time, 

to the constitution of Solon, but he disliked the popular 

but was instead a return to elections of Solon; and his 

old Greek custom, as Oeorgii principle of free investigation 

(Uebersetzung d. Plat. Apolo- is widely removed from the 

gie, p. 129) asserts, is not spirit of Solon's times, 
correct. For not only did he * Compare the remarks of 

express disapproval of appoint- Koch on Aristophanes, i. 7. 
ing by lot to public offices, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



A very different question is it whether Athens at 
that time had a right to this opinion, a point which 
the defenders of Athens assume far too readily.^ To 
us the question appears to deserve an unqualified 
negation. Had a Socrates appeared in the time of 
Miltiades and Aristides, and had he been condemned 
then, the sentence might be regarded as a simple 
act of defence on the part 6f the old morality against 
the spirit of innovation. In the period after the 
Peloponnesian war such a view can no longer be 
admitted. For where was the solid morality which 
Anytus and Meletus were supposed to defend ? Had 
not all kinds of relations, views, and modes of life 
long since been penetrated by an individualising 
tendency far more dangerous than that of Socrates ? 
Had not men been long accustomed in place of the 


(3) Rela- 
tion borne 
hf his 
theory to 
the times 
in which 
he lived, 

was al- 

ready m a 
state of 

* Hegel, 1. c. p. 100, is here 
most nearly right, although he 
regards the Athenians exclu- 
sively as the representatives 
of the old Grreek morality. 
Forchhammer, on the contrary, 
is anything but impartial, in 
making the Athenians conser- 
vative, and Socrates a revolu- 
tionary, and attributing to the 
latter the extreme consequences 
of those principles, notwith- 
standing his protest. Nietzsche, 
too (Sola:. u. d. Griech.Trag6die, 
p. 29), overlooks the difference 
of times in thinking that, when 
Socrates had once been im- 
peached, his condemnation was 
quite just. If this were allowed, 
not a word could be said against 
the sentence of death. For, 
according to Athenian custom. 

when a verdict of guilty had 
been brought in, the judges 
could only choose between the 
penalty demanded by the 
plaintiff and that asked for by 
the defendant ; in the present 
case between death and an iUu- 
sory fine. But the question 
really is whether Socrates de- 
served punishment at all, and 
to this question a negative 
answer must be given both 
from our point of view as well 
as from that of his cotempor- 
aries; from ours, because we 
take liberty of judgment to be 
something sacred and invio- 
lable ; from theirs, because the 
Athenians had long since de- 
parted from the ancient state 
of things. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Ohap. great statesmen of old to see demagogues and aristo- 
crats in feud with each other on every other point, 

but agreeing in the thoughtless play of rivalry and 
ambition ? Had not all the cultivated men of that 
time passed through a school of rationalism which 
had entirely pulled to pieces the beliefs and the 
morals of their ancestors ? Had not men for a gene- 
ration lived themselves into the belief that laws are 
the creations of caprice, and that natural right and 
positive right are very different things ?^ What had 
become of the olden chastity when Aristophanes 
could tell his hearers in the midst of his attacks 
on Socrates, half in joke, half in derision, that they 
were one and all adulterers ?* What had become of 
ancient piety at a time when the sceptical verses of 
Euripides were in every one's mouth, when every 
year the happy sallies of Aristophanes and other 
comedians in successful derision of the inhabitants 
of Olympus were clapped, when the most unprejudiced 
complained that fear of Grod, trust, and faith, had 
vanished,^ and when the stories of future retribution 
were universally derided ? * 
(Jb) So- This state of things Socrates did not make ; he 

TeUin^th ^^™^ ^^ existing. What he is blamed for really con- 
whcuc he sists in this, that he entered into the spirit of his 
^^ing. time, trying to reform it by means of itself, instead 
of making the useless and silly attempt to bring it 
back to a type of culture which was gone for ever. 
It was an obviously false attack of his opponents to 

» Conf . p. 29. » Thuc. iii. 82 ; ii. 53. 

2 aouds, 1083. * Plato, Rep. i. 330, D. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



hold him responsible for the corruption of faith and Chap. 
morals, which he was trying to stem in the only 
possible way. It was a clumsy self-deception on 
their part to imagine themselves men of the good old 
time. His condemnation is not only a great injustice 
according to our conceptions of right, but it is so 
also according to the standard of his own time ; it is 
a crying poKtical anachronism, one of those unfortu- 
nate measures, by which a policy of restauration is 
ever sure to expose its incompetence and short- 
sightedness. , Socrates certainly left the original 
groimd of Greek thought, and transported it beyond 
the bounds, within which this particular form of 
national life was alone possible. But he did not do 
so before it was time, nor before the untenableness 
of the old position had been amply demonstrated. 
The revolution which was going forward in the whole 
spirit of the Greeks, was not the fault of one indi- 
vidual, but it was the fault of destiny, or rather it 
was the general fault of the time. The Athenians 
in punishing him condemned themselves, and com- 
mitted the injustice of making him pay the penalty 
of what was historically the fault of all. The con- 
demnation therefore was not of the least use: in- 
stead of being banished, the spirit of innovation was, 
on the contrary, thereby all the more aroused. We 
have then here not a simple collision between two 
moral powers equally justified and equally limited. 
Guilt and innocence are not equally divided between 
the parties. On the one hand was a principle his- 
torically necessary and higher in respect of import- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, ance, of which Socrates had an unquestioned claim 

' to be the representative. On the other hand, one 

far more limited, represented by his opponents, but 

to which they have no longer a just right, since they 

do not faithfully adhere to it. This constitutes the 

peculiar tragic turn in the fate of Socrates. A 

reformer who is truly conservative is attacked by 

nominal and imaginary restorers of old times. The 

Athenians in punishing him give themselves up as 

lost; for in reality it is not for destroying morals 

that he is punished, but for attempting to restore 


(c) A To form a correct judgment of the whole occur- 

^Xseen rence, we must not forget that Socrates was con- 

Soorates demned by only a very small majority, that to all 

and his .11.1. "i T_ • 

country- Jippearances it lay m his own power to secure his 
77^» w/iti^cquittal, and that undoubtedly he would have es- 

absolutely ^ ^ j 

necessary, caped with a far less punishment than death, had he 
not challenged his judges by the appearance of pride. 
These circumstances must make us doubly doubtful 
of regarding his ruin as an unavoidable consequence 
of his rebellion against the spirit of his nation. As 
they place the guilt of the Athenians in a milder 
light, by laying it in part on the head of the accused, 
so too they at the same time prove that accidental 
events, in no way connected with the leading charac- 
ter of his teaching, had great weight in the final 
decision. No doubt Socrates was at variance with 
the position and the demands of the ancient morality 
in essential points ; but it was not necessary in the 
then state of opinion at Athens, that it should come 
to a breach between him and his nation. Although 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the political reaction after the expulsion of the thirty Chap. 
tyrants was sufficiently powerful to bring about an ' 

attack on him, the conviction of his guilt was not so 
universal but that it might have been possible for 
him to escape the punishment of death. 

For his honour and his cause it was a happy (4) Tke 
thing that he did not escape. What Socrates in ms death. 
pious faith expressed after his condemnation — that 
to die would be better for him than to live — has 
been fully realised in his work. The picture of the 
dying Socrates must have afforded to his pupils, in 
the highest degree, what it now after centuries affords 
to us — a simple testimony to the greatness of the 
human mind, to the power of philosophy, and to the 
victory of a spirit pious and pure, reposing on 
clear conviction. It must have stood before them in 
all its glory, as the guiding star of their inner life, 
as it is depicted by Plato's master hand. It must 
have increased their admiration for their teacher, 
their zeal to imitate him, their devotion to his teach- 
ing. By his death the stamp of higher truth was 
impressed on his life and words. The sublime repose 
and happy cheerfulness with which he met death, 
was the strongest corroboration of all his convictions, -^ 
the zenith of a long life devoted to knowledge and 
virtue. Death did not add to the substance of his 
teaching, but it greatly strengthened its influence. 
A life had been spent in sowing the seeds of know- 
ledge with a zeal unequalled by any other philosopher 
either before or after; his ♦death greatly forwarded 
the harvest, so that they brought forth fruit abun- • 1 
dantly in the Socratic Schools. W^ ^ 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

PAET m. 




Chap. A MIND so great and active in every way as that of 
^^ Socrates could not fail to make a lasting impression 

A. ScIumI on every kind of character with which it came into 
ies. contact. If then the most perfect systems are often 

not understood by all their adherents in the same 
sense, might not a much greater divergence and 
variety of apprehension be expected, in a case where 
no system lay ready to hand, but only the fragments 
and germs of what might be one — a person, a princi- 
ple, a method, a mass of individual utterances and of 
desultory discussions ? The greater part of the fol- 
lowers of Socrates confined their attention to what 
was most obvious and lay nearest to an ordinary in- 
telligence — the originality, the purity of character, 
the intelligent view of life, the deep piety and the 
beautiful moral maxims of their teacher. Only a 
smaller number gave more careful attention to the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



deeper thoughts, which often appeared under so un- 
pretentious an outside, and even of these nearly all 
took a very narrow view of the subjects which occu- 
pied Socrates, Combining older theories with the 
teaching of their master, which it is true needed to 
be thus supplemented, they did so in such a manner 
as almost to lose the distinctive merits of his philoso- 
phy. One only with a deeper insight into the spirit 
of Socrates has succeeded in creating a system which 
presents in a most brilliant and extended form what 
Socrates had attempted in another manner and on a 
more limited scale. 

In the first of these classes must be placed with- 
out doubt by far the greater number of those who are 
known to us as the pupils of Socrates.^ The writings 


* Besides the Socratists who 
will be presently mentioned, 
are Critp (Xen, Mem. ii. 9 ; 
PlatoT^ito, Phaedo, 69, B., 60, 
A., 63, D., 116, A. ; Ejithjcde- 
jnaa ; JDiog. ii. 121, who makes 
him the author of seventeen 
books, which, however, belong 
to him as little as his suppos- 
ed children Hermogenes, and 
others), and Clitobulus his son 
(Xen. Mem. i. 3, 8. ii. 6 ; (Ec. 
1-6 ; Symp. 4, 10 ; Plato, Apol. 
33, D., 38, B. ; Phaedo, 69, B. ; 
^sch. in AthencBUg v* 220, a.) ; 
Chaerephon (Mem. 2, 48 ; ii. 3 ; 
PtatOy K^\. 20, E.; Charm. 
153, B. ; Gprgias, Aristophanes, 
Clouds, Birds, 1296) and his 
brother Chaerecrates (Mem. 
1. c.) ; also ApoUodorus (Mem. 
iii. 11, 17; Plato, Apol. 34, 
A., 38, B. ; Phaedo, 69, B., 117, 
D. ; Symp.) ; Aristodemus(Mem. 

i. 4 ; Plato, Symp. 173, B., 174, 
A., 223, B.); Buthydemus 
(Mem. iv. 2 ; 3 ; 6 ; 6 ; PL, 
Sym. 222 B.); Theages {PL 
Apol. 33 E. ; Rep. vi. 496, B.) ; 
Hermogenes {Xen. Mem. ii. 10, 
3, iv. 8, 4 ; Sym. 4, 46 ; Apol. 2, 
PL Phaedo, 59, B). In Mem. i. 
2, 48, perhaps 'Epfioyeuris should 
be read for Hermocrates ; but 
at any rate this Hermocrates 
must be distinguished from the 
Hermocrates mentioned PL 
Tim. 19, C, 20, A, Krit. 108, 
A ; the latter being a stranger 
who only stays at Athens on 
his way. Compare Stdnhart, 
PL W. vi. 39 and 235 ; Phaedo- 
nides (Mem. i. 2, 48 ; PL Phaedo, 
59, C.) ; Theodotus {PL Apol. 
33, E.) ; Epigenes (Phaedo, 69, 
B. ; Mem. iii. 12) ; Menexenus 
(Phaedo, 69, B.; Lysis, 206, D.) ; 
Q^ippus (Phaedo, Euthyde- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




too which are attributed to many of these followers of 
Socrates — amongst which, however, there is much 
that is spurious — were, on an average doubtless little 
more than summaries of popular moral majdms.^ 
One of the best illustrations of this mode of under- 
standing and applying the doctrines of Socrates may 
be found in Xenophon.^ 

mus, and Lysis) ; Theaetetus 
(Theaetet. Soph. Pol. Proel, in 
Euclid. 19, m. 20) ; the younger 
Socrates {Plat. Theaet. 147, B. ; 
Soph. 218. 8 ; Polit. 257, C. ; 
ArisU Metaph. vii. 11, 1036, 6, 
25 ; conf. Her^nmnn^YlAt, i. 661) ; 
Terpsion {PL Theaet. ; Phaedo, 
59, C.) ; Charmides {Xen. Mem. 
iii. 7; 6, 14; Symp. 4, 29; 
Hellen. ii. 4, 19 ; Plato, Charm. 
Sym. 222, B. ; Prot. 316, A.) ; 
Glaucon the brother of Plato 
(Mem. iii. 6; the same indi- 
vidual to whom Diog. ii. 124, 
attributes nine genuine and 
thirty-two spurious dialogues, 
and who is identical with the 
Glauco of Plato's Republic, and 
the Parmenides, as we assume 
following Boekh; conf. Ab- 
handlung d. Berliner Acad. 
1873, Hist. Philos. Kl. p. 86) ; 
Cleombrotus (Phaed. 69, C. ; 
perhaps the same who is said 
by CaJiim. in Cic, Tusc. i. 34, 
8i, and Sext. Math. i. 48; 
David, Proleg. in Gat. 9 ; S<^ol. 
in Arist. 13, b, 35 ; Ammon in 
Porphyr. Isag. 2, b, to have 
committed suicide over the 
Phaedo, probably not from mis- 
usiderstanding the ezhcni^tlan 
to a philosophic death, but 
from shame for his conduct 
there blamed) ; Diodoms (Mei». 
ii. 10) ; Oritdas, whom Diov^. 

Jud. de Thuc. c. 31, p. 941, 
reckons among the f oUowers of 
Socrates and Alcibiades in 
their younger years (Mem. i. 
2, 12, Plato) ; not to mention 
others who were acquainted 
with Socrates, but did not join 
his way of thinking, su(^ as 
Phaedrus the friend of Sophistry 
{Plato, Phsed., Symp.); Callias 
{Xen. Symp., Plato, Phot.) ; the 
yoimger Pericles (Mem. iv. 6) ; 
Aristarchus (Mem. ii. 7.) ; Eu- 
therus (Mem. ii. 8) ; and many 

' Crito and Glauoon. 

^ Zen<^hon, the son of the 
Athenian Gryllus, died aecoid- 
ing to a statement in JHag, 
ii. 56, 360-359 B.C. From 
Hellen. vi. 4, 35, however, it 
appears that he survived the 
murder of Alexander of Phei» 
367. If the treatise respectuiig 
the public revenues of Athens 
belongs to the year 355, he 
must also have outlived that 
year. On the authority of P*. 
lAi4!ian,^ Macrob. 21, his ibiith 
was formerly placed in 450, or 
on aocovnt of his participation 
in the battle of I>elium, p. 66, 
%, in 445 B.G. The finst of <theae 
passages is, however, extremely 
untrustworthy, as gi^ng in- 
formation depending on <the 
dttte of his <death which w ^ery 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



It is impossible in reading the works of this Chap. 
author not to be struck with the purity and loftiness 

uncertain. The latter is so 
much at variance with what 
Plato^ Symp. 220, D. says, that 
it is a most uncertain foun- 
dation on which to build. 

B. Xeno- 

in Pausanias he died here. plum. 
More credible authorities state 
that he was banished by the 
Eleans (probably in 370 B.C., 
when they joined the Thebans 

Neither passage agrees with after the battle of Leuctra 
what Xenophon himself says Diodor. xv. 62), and spent the 
(Anab. iii. 1, 4 and 25, Mtp rest of his life at Corinth 

itpoipaalipyMi t^P riKuciav) 2, 37, 
where he mentions himself and 

{Diog, 63). His banishment 
appears to have ended, when 

Timasion as the two youngest Athens Joined Sparta against 

amongst the generals. These Thebes, as the treatise on the 

passages place it beyond dispute, revenues indicates, whether 

that at the time of the expedi- before or after the battle of 

tion he is describing, 401-400 Mantinsea, in which his two 

B.C., he was about 45 years of sons .fought among the Athe- 

age and not much older than nian cavalry, and the elder one 

his friend Proxenus, who fell Gryllus fell {IHog. 54 ; Phit, 

in it about 30. (So Grate, Consol. ad ApoU. 33, p. 118), 

Plato iii. 563 ; Cohet, Novae Xenophon 's writings are dis- 

Lect. 535 ; Bergk in Ersch. u. tinguished for purity and grace 

Gruber's Encyl. i. 81, 392 ; of language, and the unadorned 

CurtiuSy Griech. Gesch. iii. 772, clearness of the description. 

31.) The circumstances of his They appear to have been pre- 

life we only know imperfectly, served entire. The Apology, 

He speaks himself in the Ana- however, the Agesilaus, and 

basis iii. 1, 4, Memorabilia and the treatise on the Athenian 

CEconomicus of his relations constitution are certainly spu- 

to Socrates, as to the origin of rious and several others of the 

which IHog, ii. 48, tells a smaller treatises are either 

doubtful story, and in the spurious or have large inter- 

Anahaais of his activity and polations. Steinhart, Plat. I, 

experience in the retreat of 95, 300, wrongly doubts the 

the 10,000. After his return Symposium. For his life and 

he entered the Spartan army writings consult Kriiger, De 

in Asia Minor, and fought Xenoph. Vita, Halle, 1832, also 

under Agesilaus at Coronea in 2nd vol. of Historisch. philol. 

against Ms own countrymen. Studien, Manke, De. Xenoph. 

Banished for this from Athens, 
he settled in the Elean Scillus, 
colonised by Spartans {Xen» 
Anab. v. 3, 6 ; Diog. ii. 51 ; Pau- 
Sim. V. 6, 4 ; Plwt. Agesil. 18 ; 
De Exil. 10, p. 603). Accord- 
ing to an Ul-accredited story 

Vita et Scriptis, Berlin, 1851. 
Gh^otey Plato iii. 562; £ergky I.e. ; 
SMr in Pauly's Realencyclop. 
vi. 6, 2791. For other litera- 
ture on the subject Ihid. and 
Uaberrceg, Gesch. d. Phil. i. 95, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, of the sentiment, with his chivalrous character, and 
1_ - the healthy tone of his mind ; still his philosophical 

capacities cannot be estimated at a very high rate. 
His description of Socrates is full of admiration for 
the greatness of his character ; his philosophical 
merit and his intellectual labours he has only im- 
perfectly understood. Not only does he share the 
narrowness of the position of Socrates — as for instance 
when he quotes the derogatory opinions of his master 
respecting natural science in proof of his piety and 
intelligence,^ — but he misunderstands the true phi- 
losophic worth of the discussions he reports. The 
formation of conceptions, constituting as it does the 
germ of the whole teaching of Socrates, is only acci- 
dentally mentioned by him in order to show what 
care his master devoted to the critical culture of his 
friends.^ All that he gathers from Socrates' peculiar 
habit of asking every one whom he came across, in his 
thirst for knowledge, as to his mode of life, is that 
he tried to make himself useful to people of every 
class, craftsmen included.' The importance of those 
maxims too, relative to virtue, in which the whole 
peculiarity of the Socratic ethics consists, can only 
be gathered with so much diflBculty from his accoimt, 
that it is obvious how little it was understood by 
Xenophon himself.^ Many echoes and reminiscences 
of the Socratic mode of teaching are indeed to be 
found in his independent sketches ; but he is too ex- 

> Mem. i. 1, 11 ; iv. 7. « ibid. iv. 6. 

« Ibid. iii. 10, 1 ; i. 1 ; conf . 106, 2. 
* Mem. iii. 9, and p. 140. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


clusively occupied with their practical application to Chap. 

engage in any really scientific researches. He de- 
scribes the catechetical mode of teaching,* in which 
he seems to have been somewhat skilled; but his 
dialogues do not aim, like those of the genuine So- 
cratic type, at the formation of conceptions, and are 
often far too easy in their proofs and deductions. 
He recommends self-knowledge,^ but primarily only 
in its popular sense, meaning, that no one ought to 
attempt what is beyond his powers. He insists pn 
pietjjjelf^restraint,' and so forth, but he appears not 
to hold the maxim of Socrates,^ that all these virtues 
consist in kno^edge. Following the method used 
by Socrates, he proves that nothing is a^good_ofjj^ich 
youjlonLOtjoaake a right use ; * that every one readily 
submits to the wise,^ that right anjd law are sjmony- 
mous terms ,^ and that the rich are not more ha ppy 
than the_goor,^ that the true measure of riches and 
poverty is not simple possession, but a possession pro- 
portionate to the needs of the possessor.^ He repeats 
what Socrates had said about truth and error,^® yet 
not without hinting that these principles are liable 
to be abused. With the same decision as his master, 
he declares against the sensual and unnatural abuses 

» (Ec. 19, 14. * See above, p. 141, 2. 

* Cyrop. vii. 2, 20. • Cyrop. i. 6, 21. See above, 
» IHd. viii. 1, 23. p. 168, 2. 

* Compare the conversation ^ IHd, i. 3, 17. See p. 
between Cyrus and Tigranes, 148, 1. 

Cyrop. iii. 1, 16, and Mem. i. 2, « Ibid. viii. 3, 40 ; Symp. 4, 

19, in which the ordinary view is 29 ; Mem. i. 6, 4. 

given rather than the Socratic, • CEc. 2, 2. 

although the language allows *• Cyrop.i.6,31;Mem.iv.2,l3. 

the latter. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap, of love ; ^ and, following out his train of thought, he 
requires that woman should have a recognised, social 
position, and have mOTe cate ..spent on h^iifi^ucation, 
and that her union should be made into a re§l_com- 
panionslup-&r-life, and should be based on a recipro- 
city of capacities and performances.* He exhorts to 
work, without, however, like his teacher condemning 
the Greek prejudice against manual laboi^aiJ By 
many of his expressions he gives us to knowwhat is 
his ideal of a beautiful and happy life ; * but he 
neither attempts to give a philosophic reason for his 
ideal, nor does he place it outside the platform of 
traditional Greek ethics. Touching the knowledge 
and omnipotence of the Gods, their care for mankind, 
the blessing consequent upon piety,* he expresses 
himself with warmth ; but at the same time he fully 
shares the belief of his nation ® in regard to predic- 
tions and sacrifices, himself understanding their inter- 
pretationj He makes Cyrus express the hope of a 
higher life after death, confirming that view by 
several considerations, without, however, venturing 
to assert it with full assurance. He reminds us that 
the soul is invisible ; that vengeance surely comes on 
the murderers of the innocent, and that honour is due 
to the dead. He cannot believe that the soul which 

" Symp. 8, 7, p. 165. • Compare amongst other 

* GSc. 313, c. 7; see p. 166, 4. passages, Cyrop. i. 6, 2 ; 23 ; 
» (Ec. 4, 2; 6, 6; 20, 15; 44: (Ec. 5, 19; 7, 7; 11, 8; 

conf . p. 170, 1. Hipparch. i. 1 ; 5, 14 ; 7, 1 ; 9, 

* Mem. iv. 8, 11 ; Cyrop. 8 ; Anal. iii. 1, 11 ; v. 9, 22 and 
viii. 7, 6 ; (Ec. 11, 8. 6, 28, and also pp. 66, 6 ; 147 ; 

* Symp. 4, 46 ; Cyrop. i. 6, Cyrop. i. 6, 23, agrees fully 
2 ; CEc. 7, 18. with Mem. i. 1, 6. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


gives life to the body should be itself mortal, or that Chap. 
reason should not survive in greater purity after its 
separation from the body, seeing a sign thereof in 
prophesying in sleep. ^ In all these explanations we 
may discern the faithful and thoughtful follower of 
Socrates, but there is not a trace of original thought. 
Indeed it is doubtful whether the few passages in 
which Xenophon seems to have somewhat amplified 
the teaching of his master, ought not really to be at- 
tributed to Socrates. 

His larger work on politics, the Cyropaedeia, is, as 
a book of political philosophy, unimportant. Xeno- 
phon here proposes to pourtray the Socratic ideal 
of a ruler who understands his business,* and who 
cares for his people as a shepherd cares for his 
flock ; ' but what he really gives, is a description of 
a valiant and prudent general,* of an upright man, 
and of a chivalrous conqueror. Not an attempt is 
made to mark out more clearly the province of go- 
vernment, to give a higher meaning to the state, or 
to fulfil its object by fixed institutions. The demand 
for a careful education * may reveal the follower of 
Socrates, but there is so little reference in that educa- 
tion to knowledge,^ that it might more easily pass for 
a Spartan than for a Socratic education. Every 

* Cyrop. viii, 7, 17. See p. phon may be the nameless 
179. friend referred to in this pas- 

* lUd. i. 1, 3. See p. 167. sage. 

> Ihid, viii. 2, 14 ; Mem. i. * Cyrop. i. 2, 2 ; viii. 8, 13 ; 

2, 32. vii. 6, 72. 

* Ibid, 6, 12, speaks of these • A weak echo of the prin- 
duties in language similar to ciple of Socrates is found i. 
Mem. iii. 1. Perhaps Xeno- 4, 3. 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, thing centres in the person of the prince. The state 


is an Asiatic kingdom. The highest aim to which 
all its institutions tend,^ is the strength and wealth 
of the sovereign and his courtiers. Even this view is 
very imperfectly carried out, and many important 
departments of government are altogether omitted.* 
The same remarks apply to the Hiero. In this dia- 
logue Xenophon shows plainly enough, how little the 
supposed good-fortune of an absolute sovereign is 
really to be envied. His remarks touching the means 
whereby such a sovereign can make himself and his 
people happy — allowing that many of his proposals 
are expedients- do not advance beyond a benevolent 
despotism. More successful is his smaller treatise on 
family life. It bears witness to an intelligent mind 
and a benevolent heart, which comes out particularly 
in its utterances respecting the position assigned to 
woman ^ and the treatment of slaves.* But it makes 
no pretensions to be a philosophical treatise, though 
it may contain many individual Socratic thoughts.* 
From Xenophon, then, the history of philosophy can 
gain but little.® 

^ Compare viii. 1. The treaty Xenophon by Strumpell, Gesch. 

between Cyrus and the Per- d. Prakt. Phil. d. Gr. 466-509. 

sians, viii. 5, 24, has for its He sees in him the develop- 

object, security by the ad van- ment of Socratic thought froni 

tages of government. the point of applied ethics,' 

■* Compare the spirited re- and a supplement to Plato's 

marks of Mohly Gesch. d. pure speculations. Yet he too 

Staatswissenschaft, i. 204. says that excepting in the 

' C. 3, 13, c. 7. CEconomica there can be no 

* 12, 3 ; 14, 9 ; c. 21 ; 7, 37 trace of a systematic develop- 

and 41 ; 9, 11. ment in Xenophon (p. 481) ; 

^ See p. 242, 2. his ethical teaching is extremely 

« A more favourable view of simple, almost entirely devoid 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



iEschines^ would appear to have treated the Chap. 

teaching of Socrates in the same way. The writings 

of this disciple,^ are reckoned among the best models C. ^«- 
of Attic prose,^ and are by some preferred to those of ^ **'^** 
Xenophon/ It is moreover asserted that they repro- 

of philosophic language (p. 
484); he never really proves 
anything, nor employs any 
form for deduction, not even 
the favourite method with So- 
crates, that of definition (p. 
467). In what then does his 
importance for philosophy and 
history consist ? The applica- 
tion of the thoughts of others, 
without verifying their con- 
tents or observing their me- 
thod, may in many respects be 
very meritorious, but it cannot 
be regarded as a service ren- 
dered to philosophy. 

^ ^schines, son of Lysanias 
{PlatOy Apol. 33 E), against 
whom Di^. ii, 60, can have no 
weight, is praised for his ad- 
herence to Socrates {Diog. ii. 
31 ; Senee, Benef. i. 8). Plato 
mentions him (Phaedo, 59, R.), 
among those who were present 
at the death of Socrates. Ido- 
meneus, however (JDioff, ii. 60, 
35 ; iii. 36), transferred to him 
the part played by Crito in 
Plato, probably only out of 
spite to Plato. We afterwards 
encounter him in the company 
of the younger Dionysius (JDiog. 
ii. 61 ; 63 ; Phit. Adul. et Am. 
c. 26, p. 67 ; Philost. v. ApoUon. 
i. 35, p. 43; Zuman, Paras, c. 
32, conf. Diodor. xv. 76), to 
whom he had been recom- 
mended by Plato, according to 
Plutarch, by Arstippus accord- 
ing to Diogenes, Aristippus 

appears as his friend in Diog, 
ii. 82 : Plwt. Coh. Ira, 14. Poor 
to begin with {Diog, ii. 34, 62) 
he was still poor in after-life 
on his return to Athens. He 
did not venture it is said to 
found a school, but delivered a 
few speeches and treatises for 
money (^Diog. ii. 62 ; what 
Athen. xi. 607, c. and Diog, . ii. 
20 say is not credible). Whether 
the dirty stories are true which 
Lysias in Athen. xiii. 611, tells 
of him is a moot point. His 
writings according to Athen. 
give the impression of an hon- 
ourable man. The time of his 
death is not known. 

* According to Diog. ii. 61, 
64, Phrynichus in Phot. Biblio- 
thek, c. 151, p. 101, seven of 
these were considered to be 
genuine. The scanty remains 
of them have been collected by 
Hermann, De JSschin. Socr. 
Reliquiis, Gott. 1860. See Ihid. 
p. 8. 

' Longin. irepl cdp€s.; Rhet. 
Gr. ix. 669 (ed. Walz). 

♦ Phi'ynich. in Phot. Cod. 61, 
Schl. 168, g. E; Hermogenes, 
Form. Orat. ii. 3 ; Rhet. Gr. iii. 
394. M. Psellos in Con. Catal. 
of Bodl. MSS. p. 743 quoted by 
Grote, Plato, iii. 469, against 
which authority Timon in Diog. 
ii. 65 ; 62 carries no weight. 
He is said to have imitated 
Gorgias in speech, Diog. ii. 63. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




D. Sim- 
im(i» dud 

duce the spirit of Socrates with wonderful fidelity,^ 
and the few fragments which remain confirm this 
view. Nevertheless they appear to have been singa- 
larly poor in real philosophic thought. Their strength 
consists far more in the grace and elegance of their 
language than in an independent treatment of the 
Socratic teaching. 

More philosophic characters were the two The- 
bans, Simmias* and Cebes.^ Both were pupils of 
Philolaus ; * both are described by Plato * as thought- 
ful men. Still nothing certain is known of their 
philosophical opinions and performances. The writ- 
ings attributed to them ® were already rejected by 
Pansetius ^ as far as he knew them, and the single 
one extant, known as the ^ Mirror ' of Cebes, is cer- 
tainly spurious.® Still less can any dependence be 

» Arigtid. Or, ±ly,p.35, Conf. 
Demetr. De Interpret. 297. 
Hence the story (IHog, ii, 60, 
62 ; Athen, xiii. 611), that his 
speeches had been composed 
by Socrates, and given to 
him by Xanthippe. Diog. ii. 
47 ranks him among the most 
distinguished followers of So- 

2 Xen, Mem. i. 2, 48 ; iii. 11, 
17 ; Plato, Phaedo, 69, C, 63 A. 

* Mem.; Phaedo, 69, C, 60, 

< Phffido, 61, D. 

» It is said (Phaedo, 242, B.), 
that Simmias delivered and 
composed more philosophical 
speeches than any one else. In 
the Phaedo, 86, C., he is made 
to utter the maxim, that every 
question should be pursued as 
far as possible. Of Cebes, it 

is said (Phaedo, 63, A., 77, A.), 
that he could always raise 
objections, and was the most 
inveterate doubter; and the 
part which he and Simmias 
play in the Phaedo corresponds 
with this description. 

■ Diog. ii. 124, mentions 
twenty- three lectures of Sim- 
mias and three of Cebes, in- 
cluding the Mirror. Other testi- 
monies for the latter in Schweig- 
Miiser, Epictete Enchiridion et 
Cebetes tabula, p. 261. 

^ IHog. ii, 64 : irdvrMv /xcproi 
ray ^KpariKcoy ^idK6y{ay Ilavat- 
rios hXriSeis thai SokcT robs HAci- 
rtovos, Ufvo^yros, *Avriff$€vov^, 
AUrxivov ^i(prd(€i hh ircpl ray 
^aituyos Koi EvkKcISou, rohs 8^ 
&Wovs kyaipei trdyras, 

* In modem times its ge- 
nuineness has been maintained 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



placed on the genuineness of the writings which were 
circulated at a later time under the name of the 
shoemaker Simon.^ Probably he is altogether an 
imaginary person.^ 

In addition to Plato, four founders of Socratic 
schools are known to us : Euclid , Phsedo, Antistlignes, 
and Aristippm . Of these the two former are much 
alike; the two others follow courses peculiar to 
themselves. There axose thus from them three dis- 
tinct Socratic schools : the Megarian-Elean, the 
Cynic, and the Cyrenaic. All these are derived from 
Socrates. One-sided however in their aims, and 
dependent themselves on earlier theories, they only 
imperfectly catch the spirit of the teaching of 


by Bdhr (Pauly's Real-Ency- 
clop. 2 vol. Art. Cebes) and 
SchweigMuser, c. 13, 33; but 
their assumption is refuted by 
two passages in it, one of 
which mentions a Peripatetic, 
and the other quotes from 
Plato's Laws. In other re- 
spects too, notwithstanding its 
general colourlessness, traces 
appear of later times, e.g. in 
its 8toic morality and attacks 
on false culture. 

* See IHoff. ii. 122; Sidd, 
^MKpdrris' Epist. Socrat. 12, 13 ; 
Pint. c. Prin. Philos. c. 1, p. 
776 ; Boekh. in Plat. Minoem. 
42. Simonis Socrat. Dialogi 
iv. Hermann, Plat. i. 419, 686. 

* What Diogenes says of 
him is unsatisfactory, and the 
story that Pericles asked to be 
taken in by him, but that he 
refused, besides being chrono- 
logically suspicious, is hardly 

likely to be true. Of the 
dialogues attributed to him a 
great part are found in writ- 
ings belonging to other people 
{Hermann, 1. c). It is sus- 
picious, that he is not men- 
tioned by any ancient autho- 
rity, and that both Plato and 
Xenophon should be silent 
about an old and very remark- 
able pupil of Socrates. In 
addition to the above, Suidas 
(^Kpdr, p. 843) mentions also 
Bryso of Heraclea as a pupil of 
Socrates. Others, however, as 
Suidas remarks, called him a 
pupil of Euclid's, and the 
comedian Ephippus in Athen. 
xi. 609, c. calls him an Acade- 
mician. Theopompus' state- 
ment (1. c. 608, D.) that Plato 
copied some of his writings, 
would harmonise with either 
view; but it is in any case 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap. Socrates, and diverge from him and from one another 

in the most opposite directions. Socrates placed 

the highest business of man in knowitig the good. 
What that good was he coidd not mark out more 
accurately, being partly satisfied with a practical 
description of it, being partly restricted to a theory 
of relative pleasure. These various sides of the 
Socratic philosophy now diverge, and are rounded 
into systems. One party confines itself to the 
general burden of the teaching of Socrates — the 
abstract idea of the good. Others starting from 
pleasure which is its result make that the gauge of the 
good, and the good itself something relative. Again 
within the former class some make the theoretical, 
others the practical treatment of the good, to be the 
main point. Thus the Socratic teaching gave rise 
to the three schools just named, which in so far as 
they bring into prominence individual elements in 
the spirit of Socrates to the detriment of the rest, 
revert to older lines of thought, long since passed 
in the historical development of philosophy. The 
Megarians and Cynics go back to the Eleatic doc- 
trine of the One and All, and to the Sophistry of 
Gorgias; the Cyrenaics to the negative teaching 
of Protagoras, and to the early scepticism of Herac- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





The founder of the Megarian school ^ is Euclid.^ A 


* DeyckSy Be Megaricorum 
Doctrina, Bonn, 1827, whose 
careful work has not been 
added to by Mallet's Histoire 
de I'Ecole de M6gare, Par. 1845. 
More independent, but some- 
times too diffuse, is Henne, 
Ecole de M6gare, Par. 1843. 
JHtteTy Ueber die Philosophie 
der Meg. Schule in Bhein. 
Mus. ii. (1828), p. 295 ; Marten- 
stein, Ueber die Bedeutung 
der Meg. Schule f ur die Gesch. 
d. Metaphys. Probleme, Ver- 
handl. der Sachs. Gesellschaft 
der Wissensch. 1848, p. 190; 
JPrantlf Gesch. d. Logik, i. 33, 
which enters most deeply into 
the logical teaching of the 

^ Euclid's home was Megara 
{Plato, Theaetet. ; Phsedo, 69, 
C.) ; that it was his birth-place 
is asserted by Cio, Acad. iv. 42, 
129 ; iStrabOy ix. 1, 8, p. 393 ; 
Diog. ii. 106. The statement 
that he came from Gela (rivh 
in Diog.) doubtless rests on a 
misunderstanding. D&yohs, p. 
4, imagines it arose from con- 
founding him with Euclid the 
jester, y^Xoios, to whom, how- 
ever, Athen. vi. 242, b, 250, e, 
does not give this epithet. 
Henne, p. 32, conjectures, but 
without sufficient reason, that 

A- History 
of the 

he was educated at G«la. That j^ j^^ jj^^. 
he also possessed property in ^a^fUayna 
Attica, Grote, Plat. iii. 471, 5^"^^-"'- 
concludes, but without suffi- 
cient reason, from IHonys. 
Judic. de Isao, c 14 ; Karpo- 
crat. tri rh iiriKnpvTr. Poll. viii. 
48. Dionysus only refers to a 
judicial speech of Isaeus vphs 
EhK\€lhijv a/pr&pos of a piece 
of land, but that this Euclid 
was the follower of Socrates is 
pure conjecture. The time of 
his birth cannot be accurately 
determined, nor does the anec- 
dote in QeU. vi. 10 help for 
this. He was, however, pro- 
bably older than Plato. This 
seems to be proved by the fact 
that on the death of Socrates 
he served for some time as a 
centre to his disciples. The 
time of his death is also un- 
certain. If Stilpo and Pasicles 
were his personal pupils, he 
must have lived at least till 
360 B.C.; but this is very un- 
certain. On the whole little is 
known of him. A celebrated 
saying of his to his brother, 
which bears witness to a gentle 
character, is quoted by PhiL de 
Ira, 14, p. 462 ; Frat. Am. 18, 
p. 489; Stol. Flor. 84, 16; 
Diog, ii. 108, mentions six dis- 
courses of his. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





faithful friend and admirer of Socrates,^ but at the 
same time familiar with the Eleatic doctrine,^ Euclid 
made use of the latter to develope the Socratic phi- 
losophy as he understood it. He thus established a 
separate bra^nch of the Socratic School,* which con- 
tinued to exist until the early part of the third 
century/ Ichthyas* is named as his pupil and 

» The story told by GelLy N. 
A. vi. 10, of his nightly visits 
to Athens is well known. It 
cannot, however, go for much, 
though not in itself impro- 
bable. On the contrary, it may 
be gathered from Plato's Theae- 
tet. 142, C. that Euclid con- 
stantly visited Socrates from 
Megara, and from the Phaedo, 
^9, 0. that he was present at 
his death. A further proof of 
his close connection with the 
followers of Socrates wiU be 
found in the fact {Diog. ii. 106 ; 
iii. 6) that Plato and other fol- 
lowers of Socrates stayed with 
him for a considerable time 
after the death of their master. 
He is usually spoken of as a 
disciple of Socrates, and has a 
place amongst his most dis- 
tinguished disciples. 

* As may be gathered from 
his system with greater cer- 
tainty than from Cic. and Diog. 
When Euclid became acquain- 
ted with the Eleatic Philosophy 
is uncertain. It is most pro- 
bable that he was under its 
influence before he came under 
that of Socrates, although the 
story in Diog. ii. 30, is too un- 
certain to prove much. 

* The <rxo\^ E^KXcfJoi (for 
which the Cynic Diogenes in 
Diog, N. 34,substitutes Euk\cI5ov 

X©^^), cgJled Megarian or 
Eristic or Dialectic, Diog, ii. 
106. Consult Deycks as to 
these names. He proves that 
the terms Eristic and Dialectic 
were not confined to the Me- 
garian School. Compare Sex- 
tM* Empiricus, who generaUy 
understands by Dialecticians, 
Stoics, for instance, Pyrrh. ii. 
146, 166, 229, 235. 

* How early Euclid was at 
the head of a special circle of 
pupils, and whether he appeared 
formally as a Sophist, or like 
Socrates onlygraduallygathered 
about him men desirous to 
learn, we are not told. Perhaps 
the emigration of many fol- 
lowers of Socrates to Megara 
gave occasion for the estab- 
lishment of this school, i. e., 
for the formation of a society, 
which at first moved about 
Euclid's house and person, 
busying itself with discussions. 
There is no ground for sup- 
posing that Plato and his 
friends removed to Megara, 
attracted by the fame of the 
School of Euclid, as Henne 
maintains, pp. 27 and 30. 

* Suid. E6KA.«f8ijj — Diog, ii. 
112, only makes the general 
remark, that he belonged to 
the School of Euclid. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



successor, respecting whom, however, nothing further 
is known.* Of greater note was Eubulides,^ the 
celebrated dialectician,^ who wrote against Aristotle,* 
and who is mentioned as the teacher of Demos- 
thenes.* Cotemporary with him were Thrasyma- 
chus® of Corinth, and Dioclides,^ perhaps also 
Clinomachus.® Pasicles,® however, would appear to 
be younger. A pupil of Eubulides was Apollonius 
of Cyrene, sumamed Cronus,*® the teacher of the 


* His name is still found in 
IHog, ii. 112 ; vi. 80 (Diogenes 
dedicated to him a dialogue 
called Ichthyas). AtJien, viii. 
336, a. 

* Of Miletus according to 
Dioff. ii. 108. Whether he was 
the head of a school, or whether 
he was an immediate disciple 
of Euclid, we do not know. 
Diogenes only says, rris 8* 
EiK\€i9ov SfoSox^f ^<rTi ical EvjS. 

* Compare Diog, ii. 108; 
Sext, Math. vii. 13. 

* Diog, ii. 109 ; Aristocles in 
Ihis, Pr. Ev. XV. 2, 6 ; Athen, 
viii. 364, b. Themist. Or. xxiii. 
286, c. From these passages it 
is seen that the attack of Eu- 
bulides was very violent, and 
not free from personal abuse. 
We also hear from Athen. x. 
437 of a comedy of Eubulides. 
But he can hardly be the indi- 
vidual whose work on the 
Cjrnic Diogenes is quoted by 
Diog, vi. 20, 30. 

* The fact seems pretty well 
established (although it is con- 
spicuously omitted by Plutarch 
in his life of Demosthenes), 
being not only attested by 
Diog, ii. 108; Pseudophtt, v. 
Dec. Orat. viii. 21 ; Aptilei, 

De Mag. c. 15, p. 478 ; Suid. 
Arifioae4jfris, and Fhot, Cod. 265, 
but being also alluded to by 
the Comedian in Diog., who 
can hardly have called a bare 
acquaintance a disciple. 

• According to Diog, ii. 121, 
a friend of Ichthyas, and a 
teacher of Stilpo's. 

^ tSttid. ST/Xirwy, a pupil of 
Euclid, and the teacher of 

• A Thurian (according to 
Diog. ii. 112), and a teacher of 
Stilpo's son Bryso, Suid. nt^^^wv, 
Diog. says he was the first to 
write on predicates, sentences, 
and such like. 

• According to Smd. ^ixvuv, 
a brother of the Cynic Crates, 
who had also Dioclides, a pupil 
of Euclid's, for teacher, and 
Stilpo for pupil. Diog. vi. 89, 
in calling Crates his brother 
and Euclid his teacher, pro- 
bably confounded Euclid with 
Dioclides, unless this be the 
work of a transcriber and 
AioK\tliov should be read for 

»• Ditfg, ii. Ill ; Strabo, xiv. 
2, 21, p. 658 ; xvii. 3, 22, p. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




sharp-witted Diodorus Cronus,* and another of his 
pupils was Euphantus, known only to us as a poet 
and historian.^ 

All other members of this school were, however, 
thrown into the shade by Stilpo,' a pupil of Thrasy- 

* Diodorus, a native of lasos 
in Carta, belongs to the most 
distinguished dialecticians of 
the Megarian School. Cio. De 
Fato, 6, 12, calls him *valens 
dialecticus ' ; 8ext, Math. i. 
309, 8ioX€icTiKetTaT0j • Sext, 
and Diog. ii. Ill, give two 
epigrams of CaUimachus ad- 
dressed to him. His fallacies 
and his researches into motion, 
and into hypothetical sen- 
tences, will be mentioned here- 
after. Pique at a dialectical 
defeat inflicted by Stilpo at 
the table of Ptolemy Soter, is 
said to have killed him (^Diog. ; 
Plin. Hist. Nat. vii. 53, 180). 
He bequeathed his dialectic to 
his five daughters; Clem, Al. 
Strom, iv. 523, A. ; JReron. 
adv. Jovin. i. t. iv. 186. His 
nickname, Kronos, is differ- 
ently explained by Strabo and 
Diog., and in modem times by 
Pafizerbieter in Jahn's Jahrb. 
f. Philol. Supplement b. V. 
223, f ., who, however, does not 
explain it altogether satisfac- 
torily. Consult, also, Steirilvart 
in Ersch. und Gruber's Ency- 
clop. Sec. i. B., 25, p. 286. 

* All we know of him is from 
Diog. ii. 110, who calls him the 
tutor of King Antigonus, and 
says that to Antigonus he ad- 
dressed a book, vepX fiwriKtias, 
Athen, vi. 251 quotes an extract 
from the fourth book of his 
history, in which if he has not 

made a gross mistake, vp<&rov 
must be read for rpirov. See 
MaUffty p. 96. Callicrates, also 
mentioned by Athenaeus, is 
known from Diodor, xx. 21, as 
a favourite of Ptolemy Soter. 

• Stilpo of Megara (Diog. ii. 
113) must have lived until the 
end of the fourth century. At 
least he survived the capture of 
Megara by Ptolemy Lagi, and 
his defeat by Demetrius Polior- 
cetes, two events which hap- 
pened 307 and 306 B.C. respec- 
tively, Diodor, xx. 37 and 46. 
On the former occasion the 
interview with Diodorus Cronus 
may have happened ; for Stilpo 
never visited Egypt {Diog. 115). 
Since he died at an advanced 
age, we may approximately 
place his birth in 380, and his 
death in 300 B.C. Probably we 
ought to place the date of both 
later, for the notices about his 
pupils in Diog, ii. 113-120, 
S&nee. Epist. 10, 1, lead us to 
believe that his activity was 
cotemporary with that of Theo^ 
phrastus ; and accordingly it 
cannot have begun long before 
the death of Aristotle. Suid. 
EvicXeiS. calls him successor to 
Ichthyas. Some of the pupils 
of Euclid are mentioned as his 
teachers, and {Diog. ii. 113), 
in particular Thrasymachus. 
{SvAd. EdKA.€f8. and SrUiro.) 
Even Euclid himself is named 
by some, but none of these 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



machus. His spiiited lectures made him an object of 
wonder to his cofemporaries, and the crowds who 
flocked from all sides to listen to them gained for the 
Megarian School a lusti'e such as it had not hitherto 
enjoyed.^ At the same time the development of their 
doctrine took with him a new turn, the principles of 
the Cynic School, into which Diogenes had initiated 
him,* being incorporated with his own to such an ex- 
tent, that doubts may be felt whether Stilpo rather be- 
longs to the Cynics or to the Megarians.' Thereby he 
became the immediate precursor of the Stoa, into 
which these two branches of the Socratic philosophy 
were carried over by his pupil Zeno.* Other Mega- 
rians, however, continued faithful to the exclusively 
critical character of this School. Alexinus of Elis, a 


statements are probable. His 
character, as to which more 
. will be said hereafter, is com- 
mecded as upright, gentle, 
persevering, open, generous, 
and unselfish, Diog. ii. 117 ; 
Plut, Vit. Pud. c. 18, p. 536 ; 
adv. Col. 22, 1, p. Ill, a. In 
early life dissipated, he en- 
tirely mastered this tendency 
by strength of will {Cie, De 
Fato, 6, 10). He also took 
part in public business, JDiog. 
114. Nine of his dialogues are 
mentioned by Diog. ii. 120. 

» Diog. ii. 113, exaggerates 
in saying, roaovrov 8" ^bp^ffiKoyUf 

&ffr9 ftiKpov UtrjCM wouray r^v 
'EXXiSa it^pwcav tls airrhv fu- 
yaplffat. He also mentions (119 
and 115) the pupils, who joined 
him from other philosophers, 
and the universal admiration 

bestowed on him at Athens and 
by several princes. It is all 
the more striking that IHog, 
120 call his speeches rl,vxpoi. 

* Diog, vi. 76. 

* The proof of this will be 
given later. 

* That Zeno was a pupil of 
Stilpo is stated by Diog. ii. 
120 ; vii. 2, 24, on the authority 
of Heraclides. The same per- 
son is no doubt referred to in 
Diog. ii. 116, as Zeno the 
Phoenician. The founder of 
the Stoa is frequently called a 
Phoenician, Diog. vii. 16, 26, 30. 
In no case can it be Zeno of 
Sidon, the pupil of Apollo- 
dorus, as Mallet, p. 62, sup- 
poses, who was himself a pupil 
of Epicurus, and who, accor- 
ding to Diog. X. 26, vii. 36, 
continued faithful to Epicure- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




cotemporary of Stilpo,^ but somewhat younger, is 
notorious for his captiousness ; and logical subtleties 
are recorded ^ of Philo, the pupil of Diodorus.^ Other 
Megarians of this and the following age are only 
known to us by name.* With the verbal criticism of 

* IHog. ii. 109, speaks of him 
as a pupil of Eubulides (ficra^h 
hk &\\au uvrcov rrjs Eh$ov\iBov 8(a- 
doxvs 'AXt^uo^ iyivero 'HXetoj). 
The age in which he lived can 
be approximately determined 
by his disputes with Stilpo 
{Plut. Vit. Pud. c. 18, p. 636) ; 
with Menedemus {Diog. ii. 136), 
and with Zeno, whose strongest 
opponent he was, Diog. ii. 109 ; 
Sext. Math. ix. 108 ; Plvt, 
Comm. Not. 10, 3, p. 1063. He 
must have been younger than 
Stilpo, and have flourished in 
the first ten years of the third 
century. His love of conten- 
tion and his malicious ways 
gained for him the nickname 
*EA«7pi'o$, Diog, Pint, Vit. Pud. 
18 ; Aristotle in Eus. Pr. Eu. xv. 
2, 4. We also learn from Her- 
mippus in Diog. that he retired 
to Olympia in his last years, in 
order to establish a new school 
there. This place of abode not 
suiting his pupils, he remained 
there alone, but soon died of 
an injury. For his writings Gon- 
sxxitDiog, ii. 110 ; vii.163 ; Atlien, 
XV. 696 ; Aristotle in Em, 1. c. 

* Diog. vii. 16, a passage 
which does not appear so am- 
biguous as Bitter, Rh. Mus. ii. 
30; Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 145, 
would have it, particularly 
when the subsequent accounts 
are taken into consideration. 
Diog. relates that Zeno of 
Gittium was fond of his society; 

Clemens, Stromat. iv. 523, and 
Jerome adv. Jov. i., quote from 
his * Menexenus ' the informa- 
tion already given respecting 
the daughters of Diodorus, 
whom he must then have 
spoken of in terms of praise. 
It is a clear mistake on the 
part of Jerome to make him 
the teacher of Cameades. Still 
stranger is Mallet's mistake, 
confounding the disputant 
Philo with Philo of Larissa, 
the founder of the fourth Aca- 
demy. The latter lived some 
150 to 200 years later. Nor 
can Philo be reckoned among 
the Stoics, although this has 
been done by Fabricius in Sext. 
Pyrrh. ii. 110, and by PrantL 
Gesch. d. Logik, i. 404. 

« Diog. vii. 191, 194, men- 
tions Philo 's writings vcpl tni' 
fjLoat&v^ and lecpl rp6irnvj against 
which Chrysippus wrote, with- 
out doubt meaning this Philo. 
To the same individual must 
be referred what Cic. Acad. ii. 
47, 143, and Sext. Math. viii. 
113, I^rrh. ii. 110, say respect- 
ing his views of hypothetical 
sentences differring from those 
of Diodorus, and Alex. Aphi. 
in Anal. pr. 59, b, says respect- 
ing their differences in respect 
of the possible. By Diog. vii. 
16, and Clemens he is sur- 
named 6 haK€KTuc6s. 

* A dialectician Fanthoides, 
doubtless the same person as 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



the Megarians is connected PyxTho's philosophy of Chap. 

doubt, Pyrrho, whom Bryso is said to have taught,^ ^^ ' 

and Timon, who studied under Stilpo himself,^ 
being the connecting links, in the same way that the 
scepticism of Gorgias is connected with the critical 
subtleties of the Eleatics. 

The Megarian philosophy is only partially known b. Their 
to us from the fragmentary notices of the ancients ; doctHne. 
and frequently it is impossible to decide whether 
their statements refer to the founder and the older 
members, or only to .the later followers of the School. 

Sext, Math. vii. 13, mentions, 
and whose disagreement with 
l)iodorus in respect of the 
possible (see p. 193, 1 and 2) 
Epictet, Diss. ii. 19, 5, speaks 
of, is mentioned by IHog. v. 
68, as the teacher of the Peri- 
patetic Lyco, and must there- 
fore have flourished 280 to 270 
B.C. A dialectician Aristides 
is also mentioned by IHog, ii. 
113, among the cotemporaries 
of Stilpo, and an Aristotle 
living in Sicyon about 255 
Plut. Arat. 3. Linias who is 
there mentioned with him 
appears also to have been a 
Megarian. Somewhat younger 
must have been Artemidorus, 
who wrote against Chrysippus, 
Diog, ix. 63. 

* Diog. ix. 61 : Uifipav IJKovae 
Bp^aavos rod 'XrikvcDvoSf «y 'AXe- 
^auBpos iv Aia6ox<'i''iS. Said, 
Hi^^tay: ZteiiKOvffe Bpv<ra*vos, rod 
YLKtiVoyuixov fiadrirov. Instead of 
Bryso, Api^auv was formerly 
read in IHog. Sext, Math. vii. 
13, however also calls him 
Brj'^so. Suid. Xlvfi^uif. These 
statements are not without 

their difficulties. Allowing it 
to be possible that Clinoma- 
chus and not Stilpo instructed 
Bryso, or that he enjoyed the 
instruction of both, the chro- 
nology is &till troublesome. 
For how can Pyrrho, before 
Alexander's expedition to Asia, 
as Diog. expressly says, have 
studied under the son of a 
man, whose own professional 
career probably comes after 
that expedition ? It seems as 
though the relation of Pyrrho 
to Bryso as pupil and teacher 
were an imaginary combina- 
tion, designed to connect the 
school of Pyrrho with the Me- 
garian. Possible it also is that 
Bryso, the teacher of Pyrrho, 
has been wrongly identified 
with the son of this Stilpo. 
Smd. 'SfoKpar. calls Bryso the 
teacher of Pyrrho, a pupil of 
Socrates, or according to others, 
a pupil of Euclid. Roper 
Philol. XXX. 462, proposes to 
read in the passage of Diog. 
instead of '&p<i<r<ovos rov St^Atw- 
vosy Bpia. ^ 2rl\ir. 
* IHog. ix. 109. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




It is all the more satisfactory to be able to learn 
from Plato ^ particulars respecting a theory in which 
Schleiermacher* first recognised Megarian views, and 
which, in common with most writers,' we feel justi- 

» Soph. 242, B. Plato de- 
fined Sophistry as the art of 
deception. The diflSculty im- 
mediately arises, that decep- 
tion is only then possible, 
when not-being, to which all 
deception refers, admits a cer- 
tain kind of being. It may 
then be asked, how is the 
being of the not-being pos- 
sible 7 To answer this question 
Plato reviews various opinions 
respecting being. In the first 
place he examines the two 
most opposite statements, that 
being is the many, and that it is 
the one, and after having shown 
that neither a manif oldness of 
original substances without a 
sul^tratum of imity, nor the 
unity of the Eleatics excluding 
the many, can be admitted, he 
continues, p. 245, E.: robs fihv rol- 
wv ZiaKptfio\oyovfi4vov5 5ktos re 
vcpc Ktd fi^ vdjrreis fi^y od oteXif- 
\^afi€Vy HfjLMS Hh Ikiwws ix^^' 
rohs 8^ &AX»s Xeyorras ah BtOr- 
riov. These are again divided 
into classes, those who only 
allow reality to what is mate- 
rial, and others who are called 
248, A. ol r&v elM^y <f»(Xo(. Of 
the latter it is stated 246, B. : 
Toiyapovy ol vphs abrobf (the 
materialists) afl^urfiiiTovvrts ltd- 
Xa cvXa/3»s AifttGtv 4^ iutpdrou 
woBlv aui^oyrai vojirh, drra xed 
iurAfiara cYSi} fiia^ofityoi t V ^"t- 
Oiviiy ovalay eTvoi* rk 9h ixelywy 
trAfAara ical r^y X€yoti4yiiy 6ir' 
alrr&y dX^Ocuxy icot^ tr/iucpk 8ia- 
9pauoyT€S iy rois \6yoa yiy^aiy 

ahr^ obfflas ^tpofi^y^v tiyk vpwra- 

« Platon's Werke, ii. 2. 

• Agt, Platon's Leben u. 
Schreiben, 201 ; Deycks, 37 ; 
Heindoff on Soph. 246, B.; 
BrandiSy ii. a., 114 ; Hermann, 
Plat. 339; Ges. Abb. 246; 
Stallbaiimy Plat. Parm. 60; 
Soph.^f. Polit. 61; Susemikl, 
Genet. Entw. i. 298 ; Steinhart, 
Allg. Encyk. i. 29, 53 ; Platon's 
Werke, iii. 204, 423, 554; 
Henne, Ecole de M^gare, 8^~ 
168 ; Prantlj Gesch. d. Log. i. 
37. Against Schleiermacher 
are Bitter, Bhein. Mus. von 
Niebuhr und Brandis ii. 305 ; 
Petersen, Zeitschrift f . Alter- 
thiimer, 1836, 892, Henne, p. 
49, and Mallet, p. xxx., refers 
the description in Thesetet. 
185, C. of the formation of 
conceptions, to the Megarians, 
on the ground that it does not 
agree with Plato's own method. 
But it would seem that he is 
wrong in so doing, since we 
have no reason to think of 
others besides Plato and So- 
crates. Just as little may the 
passage in Parm. 131, B. be re- 
ferred to the Megarians, as has 
been done by Schleiermacher, 
PL Werke, i. 2, 409, and Deycht, 
p. 42. The question whether 
things participate in Ideas, is 
one which the Megarians did 
not examine, and it is widely 
remote from the view discussed 
in the Sophistes. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



fied in applying to them.^ By making use of the 
testimony of Plato, and by considering the inward 



* The following are the rea- 
sons. It is clear and generally 
allowed that Plato's description 
is too minute to be without 
reference to some philosophic 
School then existing. Even 
Demsen, De Plat. Sophistes 
Marb. 1869, p, 44, is reduced to 
admit this. There is also defi- 
nite reference to a Socratic 
School in the passage where an 
opinion is attributed to certain 
philosophers, to the effect that 
true existence only belongs to 
immaterial things. A philoso- 
phy of conceptions was un- 
known before the time of So- 
crates, and the description 
agrees with no one of the pre- 
Socratic Schools. The philo- 
sophers of conceptions are 
clearly distinguished from the 
Eleatics, and are manifestly 
quite different from them. 
Still less can the Pythagoreans 
be thought of, as Mallei has 
done, p. liii. ; for they had 
neither a philosophy of con- 
ceptions, nor did they indulge 
in that subtle refutation of 
opponents, which Plato attri- 
butes to these philosophers. 
Nor can the language of Plato, 
246, C, be quoted to prove 
the contrary, where speaking 
of the dispute between the 
idealists and the materialists 
he says that : iv /i^<ry 8i irepi 
ravra &irXcrof ijjupor^pwv fuix^ 
ris &€l llvy4vrriK€v. This does 
not mean that this dispute has 
always existed, but that it was 
as old as the Schools them- 
selves, or that, every time the 
point was touched upon, a 

violent altercation ensued be- 
tween the parties. We are 
not obliged by this state- 
ment to refer this view to an 
earlier period than that of 
Socrates. And among the So- 
cratic Schools there is none to 
which it can be attributed 
with so much probability as to 
the Megarian. Some think 
that the passage refers to Plato 
(as Socher, Plat. Schriften, 266, 
and Soliaarschmidty Die Samm- 
lung der Plat. Sch., 210, do); and 
this reference commends itself 
most to those who with them 
declare that the Sophistes is 
not the work of Plato. The 
reference would of course be 
to an earlier form of Plato's 
teaching or to such Platonists 
as had failed to advance with 
their school. This is the view of 
Ueherweg, Unters. Plat. Schrif . 
277 ; PilgeVf Ueber d. Athetese 
d. Plat. Soph. Berlin, 1869, 21 ; 
GfratSj Plato, i. 458 ; iii. 482 ; 
Camphellf the Sophistes and 
Politicus of Plato, Soph. Ixxiv. 
f. 126. But is it likely that 
Plato can have treated a theory 
of his own with so much irony 
as he lavishes, p. 246, A. B., on 
these eiSfiy ^iKot t Is it Plato's 
teaching, or have we reason 
for thinking that it ever was 
Plato's teaching, that the 8^- 
ro/Ais Tov icoiiiv does not belong 
to Being but to the Becoming ? 
In his system, as far as it is 
known to us, it does belong to 
the idea of the good, to the 
creative vovs of Tynaeus, to the 
aXrla of Philebus, which must 
at any rate be reckoned as ohala 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 




connection of the several doctrines, we hope a pic* 
ture will be produced of the Megarian doctrine. 

and not as yiv^ffis, and in Fhaedo 
95, E^ it belongs to ideas in 
general. Moreover, if the con- 
tested theory only belonged to 
a small portion of Plato's 
scholars, how could the little 
fraction be opposed to the ma- 
terialists as the chief sup- 
porters of the idealistic point 
of view 1 Does not the whole 
description create the impres- 
sion that the contrast was one 
which the writer saw before 
him, and not one made from 
different conceptions of his own 
metaphysic? It mi^ht seem 
that by friends of rfiiy in this 
passage Euclid cannot have 
been meant, because (1) ac- 
cording to Aristotle's definite 
assertion (Metaph. i. 6, 987, b, 
7 ; xiii. 4, 1078, b, 9 ; Eth. N. 
1. 4, 1096, a, 13) Plato first 
brought up the doctrine of 
ideas, and (2) the Megarians 
held one and not many primary 
substances. The first reason is 
not very cogent. Doubtless 
Plato first brought into notice 
the doctrine of ideas to which 
Aristotle refers, allowing that 
Budid agreed with him in de- 
claring the elSos to be the only 
real element in things. Nei- 
ther is the second argument 
conclusive. Euclid may well 
in cases of materialism have 
, insisted, that in every object 
the incorporeal form was the 
only real thing, and yet have 
gathered all these forms to- 
gether imder the one substance 
— the good. If the latter as- 
sertion involved him in contra- 
diction with his original pre- 

mises, the contradiction is not 
greater than that involved in 
denying every change, and yet 
speaking of an action, an iv^p- 
yuv of being. Indeed, how 
otherwise can he have ad- 
vanced from the Socratic phi- 
losophy of conceptions to his 
doctrine of unity ? And does not 
the language of the Sophistes, 
246, B, teUing, how that the 
friends of ideas destroy matter 
by resolving it into its smal- 
lest particles, best correspond 
with Euclid and his school ? 
Does it not best harmonise 
with the statement of Aris- 
tocles respecting the Mega- 
rians, that the latter should 
have refused to being the 
capacity to act or to suffer? 
whereas this would not at all 
harmonise with Plato. That 
these philosophers are included 
245, E., among those ftAAws X^- 
yopr€S is not true, &XXm Keyovres 
meaning here literally those 
who speak differently, with 
whom all does not turn (as 
with the philosophers men- 
tioned 243, D) upon the an- 
tithesis of being and not-being. 
With the philosophers to whom 
Plato comes 245, E., the ques- 
tion is not whether there is one 
or more than one form of 
being, everything else being 
not-being, but whether there 
is only the corporeal or the in- 
corporeal. Conf. p. 243, D, 
with 246, A. Compare Henne^ 
106 ; Bonitz, Plat. Stud. ii. 49. 
In the explanation of tuucpifio- 
\oyovti4vous, no one appears to 
have exactly hit the mark. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


-which shall, in the main, faithfully represent the Chap. 

The starting-point of the Megarian philosophy (i) Cm- 
V must be looked for in Socrates' demand for a know- j^^^^^ 
ledge of concpptions. With this demand Euclid heoondng, 
combined the Eleatic doctrine of a contrast between 
sensational and rational knowledge. Distinguishing 
these two kinds of knowledge far more by their 
objects than by their form, he arrived at the convic- 
tion that the senses show us what is capable of change 
and becoming, and that only thought can supply us 
with the knowledge of what is unchangeable and 
really existing.* He stood, therefore, in general, on 
the same footing as Plato, and it is possible that this 
view was arrived at by both philosophers in common 
in their intellectual intercourse, and that owing to 
Plato Euclid was influenced by Heraclitus' view of 
the world of sense. Socrates had indeed made the 
immediate business of thought to be the acquisition 
of a knowledge of conceptions. Conceptions, accord- 
ingly, represent that part of a thing which never 
changes. Not material things, but only incorporeal 
species, taught Euclid, admit of true being-* The 

* PlatOy 248, A. : Tivetriv^ r^v fikv cutrB-fivtis Koi. <pwraalas Kara' 

Si ohffltw X^P^' ^^^ HieXdfiivoi fid?Js.tiy^ air^ Hk fi6voy r^ \iy<p 

.x4y€T€; 1} ydp; — Noi. — Kal tr^- wiirr^^tiy. 

fiari ft,\if TiiJMS yevecrti 9i* ala9^' ^ In the passage of the 

atws Kotvuvtipf 8c^ XoyttrfMv 84 Soph. 246, B., quoted at p. 

^^xO '"^P^^ ''^^ trras ohtrlavy %v 214, 2, in which the words ri 

a*\ Karh ravriL itvaOnos tx^^v 8i iK^lvoiy (rd^/iora must not he 

^T^, yhtffip 8i &AAotc ftAA»f. taken to mean <the bodies of 

For this reason Aristoc. in those conceptions,* cUij d(r<6- 

Ih(^, Pr. Ev. xiv. IT, 1, says of /uoto, but * the bodies of the 

the Megarians and Eleatics materialists,' in which they 

together : ofovrai 7^ 8c4v t^ look for all real being. 

s 2 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





same view Stilpo expressed, when he refused to allow 
the general conception to apply to individual things, 
on the ground that a general conception implies some- 
thing quite different from every individual thing, 
and not like these only existing from a definite time.* 
In this respect the Megarians again agree with 
Plato.* Whilst Plato^lho we ver, regarded s pecies a s 
IJvin^ spkil^uaL forces, Euclid, following in the steps 
of Parmenides, denied every kind of motion to being. 
He, therefore, reduced action and passion to the 
sphere of the becoming. Of being, he asserted, you 
can neither predicate action, nor passion, nor yet 

' Di4>g, ii. 119, says of him : 
lfA«7€, rw kiyorra &vOponroy *lyai 
firi94va (in which we suggest 
€lirt7v instead of cTvoi), oiht yhp 
r6pB€ \4yetv olht r6v9€. r( yap 
fjLoKKov rSvJit ^ r6v9€; oUrc &pa 
r($v8c. Koi ir(£Aiv* rh \dxavoy oHk 
4tm rh H^ucp^fieyow. \dxayov 
fihy yiip ^r wph fivpltor iruv * om 
&pa i<rrl toOto Xdxoofov. Dio- 
genes introduces this with the 
remark : Hewhs Hh &yau &y iy rois 
ipurriKots hrfipti ical rh ct8i), and 
it would in itself be possible, 
that Stilpo and others had 
derived their hostility to gene- 
ral conceptions, and especially 
to the Platonic ideas, from the 
Cynic School. But the above 
examples are not directed 
against the reality of groups 
expressed by a general con- 
ception, but against the reality 
of particular things. Stilpo 
denies that the individual is a 
man, because the expression 
man means something univer- 

sal and different from any 
particular man. He denies 
that what is shown to him is 
cabbage, because there was 
cabbage 10,000 years ago; in 
other words, because the gene- 
ral conception of cabbage 
means something unchange- 
able, not something which has 
come into being. We may 
then believe with Hegel, Gesch. 
d. Phil. ii. 123, and StaUbaum, 
Plat. Parm. 65, that either Dio- 
genes or his authority must 
have made some mistake here. 

* Probably expressions like 
« Hi quoque multa in Platone,' 
said of the Megarians by Oie. 
Acad. iv. 42, 129, refer to such 
points of similarity. 

» PlatOy Soph. 248, C. : \^- 
7owffiv, tri y€yiff€i itkv fi4r€<rri 
rod viiax^^^ '^^ voiuy duydfitMS^ 
rrphs hh oMcty roitruy o^Ztripov 
tV Zvyofuy kpyu&rrtiy <pauriy. It 
is accordingly afterwards re- 
peatedly stated as their view : 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Connected with this denial of the becoming is 
the assertion, probably coming from Euclid, certainly 
from his school, that capacity does not exist beyond 
the time of its exercise ; and that thus what is actual 
is alone possible.^ What is simply possible but not 
actual, would at the same time be and not be. Here 
would be the. very contradiction which Parmenides 
thought to discover in the becoming, and the change 
from the possible to the actual would be one of those 
changes which Euclid could not harmonise with the 
conception of being.^ Hence, only what is imma^ ^ 

ticulars on this point will be 
quoted from Diodorus in the 
sequel. The passage in the 
Sophistes, 248, C, which 
Hennef p. 133, connects with 
that of Aristotle, refers to 
something diflferent. 

* Sdrtenstein, p. 205, is of 
opinion that the above state- 
ment is made in direct contra- 
diction to Aristotle. It would 
in this case belong to Kubu- 
lides. But the Aristotelian 
technical terms 9^a4rBatf iiftp- 
y^'ivy do not prove much. 
Aristotle often expressed the 
statements of others in his 
own terminology. On the 
other hand, no very great im- 
portance for the system of 
Aristotle must be attached to 
the Megarian doctrine already 
quoted, even if it comes from 
Euclid. It is only a peculiar 
way of understanding the 
Eleatic doctrine against be- 
coming and motion. StiU less 
can we here support the Me- 
garians against Aristotle as 
Grate, Plato, iii. 491, does : be- 
cause a builder without ma- 



[ri Toi^eXSs ftx] cMbnyrov kffrhs 
tivai, oKlvrrrov rh rrapdvay ia- 
rdvai, and in opposition to this 
view Plato requires: "ol t^ 
Kitfovficvov H^ Koi Klmiatv ffvyx»- 
pijTeov &s ovra .... fii^rt r&y 
%v ^ «cai iro\A& eWrj \ty6vrur r6 
rrau fffrriKhs itro^dxto-Bai. — Aris- 
tocl. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 17, 1. 
• The proofs by which the Me- 
garians denied motion will be 
described hereafter. It does 
not, however, seem likely that 
the objections raised to the 
theory of ideas in the first part 
of Plato's Parmenides are of 
Megarian origin, as Stallbanm^ 
PLParm. 57 and 65, supposes. 

' ArUt, Metaph. ix. 3: ciVl 
Zi rives ot^ouriv, otov ol MeyapiKoly 
Srav ivepyf fi6vov H^vourdeUy Brou^ 
Sh fi^ ivfpyp ov Ji6vourdat. dtoy 
rhv fi^ oiKo^ofiovvra ob ^^vcut6m 
olKo^ofJieiv, iXXa rhv oiKoHofiovyra 
^av oiKoiofA^ ' dfxolws Zh Ktd M 
rS»v fkhXmv, In refuting this 
statement Aristotle observes 
that it would make all motion 
and becoming impossible ; 
which was just what the Me- 
garians wanted. Further par- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




(2) The 

terial and unchangeable is allowed by him. to be 
actual, and re^rded as the subject matter of science. 
Socrates had described the good as the highest 
object of knowledge.* In this he was followed by 
Euclid.* Eegarding, however, that which is most 
essentially real as the highest object of knowledge 
in accordance with his principles, Euclid thought 
himself justified in transferring to the good all the 
attributes ^v^hich Parmenides had assigned to real 
being. One only real good is there, unchangeable^ 
ever the same, of which our highest conceptions are 
only different names. Whether we speak of God, or 
of Intelligence, or of Beason, we always mean one 

terials, tools and intentions, 
cannot build, and when these 
and other conditions are there, 
must build. For this is not at 
all the point on which the 
dispute between Aristotle and 
the Megarians turns. Aris- 
totle on the contrary says in 
the connection of the above 
enquiry (Metaph. iv. 6, c. 7 ; 
1049, a. 5), that if the neces- 
sary conditions for the exercise 
of a capacity are given (among 
which besides the hwdtjuns Ao- 
7(Kal the intention must be 
included), its exercise always 
follows. This, according to 
Grote, is likewise the meaning 
of the Megarian sentence, 
which he disputes. Its real 
meaning — that a capacity until 
it shows itself by action is not 
only kept in abeyance by the 
absence of the necessary means 
and conditions, but is not even 
existing — ^maybe gathered from 
the objections urged by Aris- 
totle, c. 3, and from the quota- 

tions, p. 230, 9. Grote to defend 
the Megarians attributes to 
them reflections, which we have 
no right to attribute to them. 

> See p. 133 and 147. 

* That his assertions about 
the good should have nothing 
to do with the Socratic know- 
ledge (Hermann, Ges. Abhand- 
lung, 242) could only be ac- 
cepted on the supposition that 
that knowledge was not know- 
ledge about the good, and that 
Euclid was not a pupU of So- 
crates. Nor can it be readily 
oonoeded that a pure Eleatic 
philosopher, if he had only 
moved in an ethical sphere of 
ideas, would have treated this 
part of philosophy in the same 
way as Euclid. As long as he 
remained a pure Eleatic philo- 
sopher, he could not have 
taken this ethical di^rection 
and have placed the conception 
of the good at the head of his 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



and the same thing, the Good.* For the same reason 
the moral aim, as Socrates had already shown, is 
always one — the knowledge of the Good, — and if we 
speak of many virtues, all these are but varying 
names for one and the same virtue.^ 

What, however, is the relation of other things to 
this one Good? Even Euclid, as accounts tell us, 
denied any existence to what is not good;^ from 
which it follows immediately, that besides the Good 
nothing real exists. This statement is on better 
authority attributed to the later Megarian School.* 
Therewith many conceptionfi, the reality of which 
had been originally assumed, were destroyed as such, 
and reduced, in as far as any reality was admitted 
about them, to mere names of the Good.* Here, 


» Cie, Acad. iv. 42, 129 : Me- 
garici qui id bonmn solum esse 
dicebant, quod esset unum et 
simile et idem semper {ohv, 
Sfioiov rain6v). Diog. it 106, 
says of Euclid: oiros tu rh 
&7a6bi' ikire^alyero voWois ov6- 
fxaffi Kd\oi&fjLevov ' Zre fi^v yhp 
^p6»ii<nv, 6re 9h Oehy, koX &\Kor€ 
vovv Kol T^ Xovwd,. 

* Diog. vii. 161, says of the 
Stoic Aristo : hperds t' o^e 
iroKkhs ^la9ff€v^ &s 6 Z^vav^ oihe 

tas ol MeyApiKoi. That this one 
virtue was the knowledge of 
the good, appears not only 
from the internal connection 
of the system and its external 
relation to Socrates, but also 
from Cicero 1. c who asserts : 
a Menedemo autem , . . Ere- 
triaci appellati ; quorum omne 
bonum in mente positum et 

mentis acie, qua verum cerne- 
retur. Illi (the Megarians) 
similia, sed,' opinor, explicata 
uberins et omatius. Conf. 
PlatOy Rep. vL 505, B., in 
which Antiflthenes is mention- 
ed in addition to Euclid. ^ 

« Diog. ii. 106: ret 8i iKxt- 
Kclfieva r<f or^aB^ h,v^pu fiij etyat 

* Arist. in Em, Pr. Ev. xiv. 
17, 1 : 8d€y ii^lovu otroi ye [o« 
TTtpl :irl\irwva kcu rohs Meyapt^ 
Kohs'] rh hv tu ehai koI rh fi^ "bv 
eVepov etvoUf fiTjUh yevvwrSou ri 
firjUh tpBciptirBai firith KiveiirOai 
roirapdirav. Arist, Metaph. xiv. 
4 ; 1091, b, 13, refers to Plato, 
and can hardly be applied to 
the Megarians. 

* PraraVs view, p. 36, that 
the conceptions of the Me- 
garians must invariably have 
a nominalistic meaning, does 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




C. Eridic, 

probably, traces of gradual development in the Mega^ 
rian doctrine are to be found. Euclid apparently 
first spoke of a plurality of essential conceptions in 
contrast to objects of sense, and this form of teach- 
ing belongs primarily to a time in which his system 
was being developed out of this contrast.^ At a later 
period the Megarians appear to have used the mani- 
foldness of conceptions for the purpose of attackii;ig 
popular notions,^ otherwise keeping it in the back- 
ground, and confining themselves to the essenti al 
onenes s of being and the Good. Inconsistent, no 
doubt, they were ; yet ^ can understand how they 
became involved in this contradiction by gradually 
pushing the Socratic theory of conceptions to the 
abstract doctrine of the Eleatic One.* 

The sharper the contrast which they presented 

not agree with the statements 
of Plato. If the Megarians 
declared concjeptions and only- 
conceptions to be oKiidiv^ ovfflOf 
surely they were Realists, not 
Nominalists. Not even Stilpo 
can, accordingly, be called a 
Nominalist. He had, more- 
over, absorbed too much of 
the Cynic doctrines for us to 
be able to form from him any 
conclusion respecting the ori- 
ginal Megarian views. 

* Plato, at least in the pas- 
sage before quoted, does not 
mention a good which is One. 
On the contrary, he speaks of 
his philosophers of conceptions 
differing from the Eleatics in 
assuming many conceptions. 

« See p. 260, 1. 

* Henne, p. 121, tries to get 

over the difficulty in another 
way. The Megarians, he be- 
lieves, attributed being to each 
particular idea, in as far as it 
was a unity, and various con- 
ceptions were used by them to 
express various kinds of the 
good. But this very point — 
the being of various kinds of 
good — was what the Megarians 
denied. Starting with the one- 
ness of being they cannot have 
arrived at the notion of a mani- 
foldness of conceptions, since 
this oneness excludes in its ab- 
stract form any development 
or subordinate distinction. But 
it is quite possible that the 
Socratic conceptions • niay 
gradually have been lost in 
the Eleatic unity. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


tx) the current mode of thought, the greater became Chap. 
the necessity of fortifying their own position against ^ 

assault. Here again they had only to follow the 
example of the Eleatics. To prove the soundness of 
their position directly, as Parmenides had done, was 
no easy matter. More important results might be 
expected, if their opponents' ground was assailed by 
the criticism of Zeno and Grorgias. From Zeno the 
founder of the School had appropriated the Eleatic 
doctrine precisely in this its critical function, Zeno 
and the Sophists being the principal persons who 
drew attention hereto in central Greece. This path 
of criticism the Megarians now struck out with such 
preference, that the whole school herefrom derived 
its name.^ We are assured by Diogenes,* that it was 
the practice even of Euclid, to attack conclusions 
and not premises — in other words, to refute by a 
reductio ad absurdum. It is also said that Euclid^ (I) That 
rejected explanations by analogies— a form much ^'' 
used by Socrates — because a similar thing when cited 
makes nothing clearer, and a dissimilar thing is 
irrelevant. The most telling description of Euclid's 
method will probably be found in Plato, who, speak- 

* See p. 250, 3. 470), it is most probable that 

* ii. 107 : rais re itiroHel^fffiv the meaning given above is the 
iviffraro oh Karh K-iifi^ra, liKXh real meaning of these words. 
KOT* iirttpopdv. Since in Stoical • Ibid. koI rhv 5tA wapoiSoA^s 
terminology — which we are of \6yov ikjrppci, \4ywv ^roi i^ dfiolwy 
course not justified in ascribing alrhu fj 4^ avofiol(ov <rvvi<rraffdai • 
to Euclid on the strength of itol el fjL^v 4^ S/xoitav, irepl avrk 
this passage— X^/i/ia means the ^eTy fiaWov fj ots ofioid 4arL¥ 
major premiss, or more often iu/aa'rp4(t>€<r6ou * cl 8* ^^ ayofioioov^ 
both premises, and ivupoph the xap4\Kuv r^v napdOeciv. 
conclusion {Deycks, 34 ; Prantl, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, ing in the Sophistes of the philosophers of concep- 


tions, says that in their discourses they destroy matter 
piecemeal, in order to prove that it has no real being 
but is subject to flux and change.* This is exactly 
the line which Zeno adopted, in order to prove the 
uncertainty of the perceptions of the senses;^ and 
which we notice also in the Sorites of the later 
Megarians : the apparently substantial bodily mass 
is divided into its component parts, and there being 
no limit to the division, and no ultimate atom 
on which contemplation can rest, it is argued 
that matter must be itself unreal, and a mere pass- 
ing phenomenon, Euclid is accordingly rightly re- 
garded as the founder of the Megarian criticism. 
Still, with him criticism does not seem to have at- 
tained the character of formal captiousness, although 
objection may be taken to his controversial tone :^ it 
would appear that, like Zeno before him, he was 
primarily anxious to maintain his positive princi- 
ples, and that he only used the subtleties of argument 
as a means to this end. Nothing, at least, is known 
of him which would lead to an opposite conclusion, 
nor is any one of the quibbling fallacies laid to his 
charge, for which the Megarian school was afterwards 

' See p. 256, 1 ; 259, 2. statement proves but little, 
* ^eZelleVy G. d. Griech. Part since it uses the term Sophist 
I., 496. in a way peculiar to post-So- 
■ According to Diog. ii. 30, cratic times. It is more worthy- 
Socrates had already'observed, of belief {Diog, ii. 107) that 
that because of his captious- Timon called him a quarrel- 
jiess, he might associate pos- some person, who introduced 
sibly with Sophists, but not amongst the Megarians a rage 
with human beings. But this for disputes. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Among the immediate successors of Euclid, how- 
ever, the element of captiousness prevailed oyer 
positive teaching. Such teaching as they had was 
too scanty to conmiand attention for long, and too 
abstract to admit of further development. On the 
other hand a polemic against prevailing opinions 
presented to the sharp-witted, to the contentious, and 
to those ambitious of intellectual distinction, an un- 
explored field, over which the Megarians eagerly 
ranged,' Not seldom their metaphysical assumptions 
served only as occasions for hard-fighting with words. 
Among the fallacies which are attributed to Eubu- 
lides,^ though they probably belong to an earlier 


' The ordinary form of these 
captions proofs is that of ask- 
ing questions. Hence the 
regular expression : \6yo¥ ^fw- 
rnv (to raise a point) in JDiog, 
ii. 108 ; 116 ; Sext, Math. x. 87 ; 
and the VitycLpiKh ifwr^fiara in 
the fragment of Chrysippus; 
in Plut, Sto. Eep. 10, 9, p. 1036. 
Conf . Arigt, Phys. viii. 8 ; 263, 
a, 4, 7 ; Anal. Pr. ii. 19, 66, a, 
26 ; 36 ; i. 32, 47, a, 21. But 
like the Sophists, they refused 
every answer but Yes or No. 
IHog, ii. 135. 

* IHag. ii. 108, enumerates 
7 : that called ^cv5({ficvos, that 
called SioXoi^dawVf the Electra, 
the iyK9KdKviifi4voSf the trotplrriSt 
the MparivriSf the ^a\aKp65. The 
first of them is given as fol- 
,lows in ArUt, Soph. El. 25, 180, 
'a, 34, b, 2 ; Alex, ad loc. CTw. 
Acad. ii. 29, 95 : If a man says 
he is at the moment telling a 
lie, is he telling a lie, or is he 
speaking truth ? The 8«a\oi^4- 

poty, the iyK€Ka\vfifi4yos, and the 
Electra are only different forms 
of the same fallacy. Do you 
know who is concealed ? Do 
you know who is behind the 
veil? Did Electra know her 
brother before he announced 
himself to her ? and the solu- 
tion of them all consists in 
the fact, that he who was con- 
cealed, or behind the veil, or 
had not yet announced him- 
self respectively, was known 
to, but not immediately recog- 
nised by, the lookers on. See 
Arigt, S. El. c. 24, 179, a, 33; 
Alex, in loc. and 49 ; lAimariy 
Vit. Auct. 22, and Prantl The 
KtparipTis is as follows : Have 
you lost your horns ? If you 
say Yes, you allow that you had 
horns. If you say No, you 
allow that you have them still. 
Diog, vii. 187 ; vi. 38 ; Seneca, 
Ep. 45, 8; Oell. xvi. 2, 9; 
Prantl, p. 53. The Sorites con- 
sists in the question; How 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, time,^ only oue, the Sorites, has any intelligible rela*- 

' tion to their metaphysics. By means of this form of 

C^)^>r'utic argument it could be proved that no enduring being 

Udea. belongs to objects of sense, but that every such 

object passes into its opposite, and represents what is 

changing, and not what is real and unchangeable.* 

The rest appear to be simple sophisms, having no 

other object than to involve opponents in difficulties,^ 

critical works of art, wliich made indeed the need 

felt of an accurate investigation into the laws of 

thought, but in the pursuit of which the desire of 

conducing to a right intellectual method by pointing 

out difficulties and refuting untenable opinions falls 

altogether into the background. 

(S) That of y The powers of Alexinus in argument seem to 

many grains make a heap ? or 
more generally : With what 
number does Many begin ? Of 
course it is impossible to assign 
a number. See Cic. Acad. ii. 2H, 
92 ; 16, 49 ; I>iog. vii. 82 ; Ptfrs, 
Sat. vi. 78 ; Prantl, p. 54. The 
^dKoKflbs is another form of the 
same: How many hairs must- 
you lose to become a bald-head ? 
See Hot. Ep. ii. 1, 45 ; Praiitl, 
1. c. ; Deycktt^ 51. 

* There are, for instance, in- 
dications of the Sorites in 
Zeno and Euclid. In general 
it is difficult to say who are 
the discoverers of quibbles, 
which are taken seriously at 
the time they are produced, 
but are after all only bad jokes. 
Seneca^ Ep. 45, 10, says that 
many books had been written 
on the ^Mii€yosy among which 
those of Theophrastus and 

Chrysippus are known to us 
from Diog, vii. 196; v. 49. 
Chrysippus, according to Diog, 
vii. 198, 192, also wrote on the 
hiaXwBi»i0V^ the iyKtKaXvfifi4voSt 
and the aoiplrris, Philetus of 
Cos is said to have worked 
himself to death in writing 
about the «frcu8^/icyos, Athen, 
ix. 401, e. The Ktparlrrii and 
^K€KaKvfifi4vos were also attri- 
buted to Diodorus (Diog, ii. 
Ill), and the former (^ZHog. vii. 
187) as also the Sorites {IHog. 
vii. 82) to Chrysippus, certainly 
without reason to Chrysippus. 

* Compare what will be later 
said about Diodorus* proofs in 
denying motion. 

* The motive which Prantl, 
p. 52, sees in the iyic^KaXufifUpos 
is not so patent^ and the as- 
sumptions of BrandUf p. 122, 
do not seem accurate. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


have been of a similar kind. He, at least, is only Chap. 


known to us as a captious disputant.^ Nothing 

further is known of him beyond an argument in 
which he vainly attempted to entangle Menedemus 
in what is called the * horned ' fallacy,^ and a refuta- 
tion of Xenophon's proofs of the reasonable arrange- 
ment of the world,' which was subsequently repeated 
by the Academicians.* In close connection with the 
Megarian doctrines may be placed the discussions of 
Diodorus on motion and destruction, on the possible, 
and on hypothetical sentences. 

Tradition has preserved four arguments, by which (4) Tluitof 
Diodorus attempted to support the fundamerrtal '''^* 
teaching of his school on theQmpossibility of jsxo\ion^Moti(yn. 
The first,* which in the main is the same as that of 
Zeno, is as follows. Supposing anything to move, it 
must either move in the space in which it is, or in 
the space in which it is not. In the former it has 
not room to move, because it entirely fills it ; in the 
latter it can neither act nor be acted upon ; hence 
motion is inconceivable.^ The second is a less 

* See p. 254, 1. Xv h\ kScixov Kp€7Tr6v iffn • voiri' 

2 In jiiog, ii. 135. riKhv &pa xal ypotfifiariKdv itrny 

» Sext. Math. ix. 107 : Zeno 6 Kdcfios, 
had concluded, because the * Oic. N. D. iii. 8, 21 ; 10, 26 j 

world is the best possible, and 11, 27. 

reason is higher than the ab- * Sext. Vynh. ii. 242 ; iii. 71 ; 

sence of reason, that the world Math. x. 85 ; i. 311. 
must have reason. See Oio. • Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 243, men- 

De N. D. ii. 8, 21; iii. 9, 22. tions a similar argument against 

To this Alexinus replied : rh becoming in general, in imme- 

xovnriKhv rod fi^ irotrrnKov Kol rh diate connection with the proof 

ypofifun-iKhv rod fiij ypofifAartKov given above : Neither can what 

Kp€irr6» iari * moI rh Karh r^s is come into being, for it exists 

iWas Tcxyas Btvpoltfi^vov Kpur- already ; nor can what is not, 

r6v iffri rod fi^ roioirov, ov8i for nothing can happen to it ; 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


CHAP, accurate form of the same proof.' All that moves 

is in space : What is in space reposes : Therefore 

what is mioved reposes. A third proof* is hased on 
the assumption of infinitesimal atoms and particles. 
It is generally attributed to Diodorus.* Probably he 
only used it hypothetically, as Zeno did his argument, 
to refute ordinary notions.* It is this : As long as 
the particle a is in the corresponding space a, it does 
not move, because it completely fills it. Just as 
little does it move when it is in the next following 
space, B ; for no sooner is it there than its motion 
has ceased. Accordingly it does not move at all. 
In this conclusion one cannot feil to discover the 
note of Zeno's inferences, and of that critical process 
which had been already described by Plato.* The 
fourth proof,® besides assuming the existence of atoms, 
distinguishes between partial and complete motion.' 
Every moving body must first have the majority of 

ic^onseqaently nothing at all t«. ' Id, is. 362 ; Pyrrh. iii. 32 ; 

It is possible that this argu- Dionys. in Eus, Pr. Ev. xiv. 23, 

incnt also belongs to Diodorus, 4 ; Stob^ Ekl i. 103 ; Pscudo- 

But Steinkart is wrong in at- clement, Becogn. viii. 15, aU of 

tributing to him (Allg. Encykl which point to one common 

Sect, i, Tol. XXV. p. 288) the soutce. Simpl, Phys. 216, b; 

distinction between space in Schol. in Arist. 405, a, 21. 

the wider and in the narrower Diodoros called these atoms 

sense, whicii is found in Seaet, &/&ep^. 

Pyrrh, iii. 76 ; Math. x. 95, * Even the first proof, accor- 

since it would appear from ding to Sext, Math. x. 85, was 

these passages that the dis- put in such a shape as to prove 

tinction was made with a view that every atom fully occupied 

to meet Diodorus' objections. its space ; but this is unim- 

' Seact, Math. x. 112. port ant here. 

2 Id, X. 143 and 119. AUx- * See p. 265. 

tindery too, De Sensu, 125, b, * Sext, Math. x. 113. 

mentions Diodorus, \6yos wtft ^ jclnjo'ts irar* iracpdrttcur and 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

DI0D0RU8 THE MEGAltlAN. 271 

its particles moved) before it can move as a whole ; Chap. 
that it should move with the majority is, however, _^}' 
not conceivable. For supposing a body to consist of 
three atoms, two of which move whilst the third is 
at rest, such a body must move, because the majority 
of its particles move. The same applies, when a 
foiuiih atom at rest is added: for the body being 
moved Kar' hriKpareiav^ the three atoms of which It 
consists are moved, consequently the fourth at rest 
is added to the three moving atoms. Why not 
equally when a fifth and a sixth atom is added ? So 
that a body consisting of 10,000 particles must be 
moved, if only two of these first move. If this is, how- 
ever, absurd, d movement of the majority of particles 
is therefore inconceivable, and therefore a movement 
of the whole body. That there is an inconclusive- 
ness in this argument Sextus has already noticed.^ 
Diodorus, however, appears to have considered it 
unanswerable, and hence, he concludes all his re- 
searches by saying that it never can be said of a 
thing. It is moving, but only. It has moved.'* He 
was, in other words, prepared to allow what the 
senses seemed to prove,* that a body is now in one 
place and now in another, but he declared the 
transition from the one to the other to be impossible. 
This is indeed a contradiction, and as such it was 

» Sext. Math, x.112, 118. A i^eed therein with the Elea- 

further argument) the first tics. 

argument of Zeno's, is not at- * Sext, Math. x. 48 j 85 ; 91 j 

tributed to Diodorus by Sext, 97-102. 

Math. X. 47. He only says as * This reason is specially 

to its result, that Diodorus mentioned by Sext» Math, x, 80. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, laid to his charge by the ancients, and by him very 


inadequately met.* At the same time it is a devia- 
tion from the original teaching of his school. Euclid 
denied motion absolutely, and would just as little 
have allowed a completed motion as a transition in 
the present. 
{h) On With the third of these arguments agrees sub- 

twn. stantially the argument of Diodorus that nothing 

perishes. It is as follows. A Wall, he says, does 
not perish ; so long as the stones keep together, it 
stands; but when the stones are separated it no 
longer exists.^ That it may however have perished, 
he appears to have likewise allowed. 
(r) On the Closely related to the enquiry into motion, are 
his discussions on what is possible. In both cases 
the conceivability of change is the point raised, but 
in one case it is raised in reference to something, in 
the other abstractedly. In both cases, Diodorus 
stands on exactly the same footing with regard to 
his School. The older Megarians allowed as possible 
only what actually is, understanding by actual what 
was before them in the present.' To this Diodorus 
added what might be in the future, by sajing : Pos- 
sible is what either is actual or what will be actual.* 

' See Sext. 91, 97. Diodorus neously). This example is 
here proves the assertion that sufficient to show how erroneous 
anything predicated of the past Grote's view (Plato iii. 501) is, 
may be true, whilst it is not that Diodorus only intended to 
true predicated of the present assert that present motion is 
by such irrelevant statements only the transition point be- 
as that it can be said of Helen tween the past and the present. 
that she Jiad three husbands * SetKt, Math. x. 347. 
(one after another), but never ■ See p. 261. 
that she lias three (cotempora- * Oic, De Fato, 6, 12 ; 7, 13 ; 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




In proof of this statement he used an argument, 
which goes by the name of Kvpisvcovy and is still 
admired after centuries,^ as a masterpiece of subtle 
criticism. It is in the main as follows : From any- 
thing possible nothing impossible can result ; ^ but 
it is impossible that the past can be diflFerent from 
what it is; for had this been possible at a past 
moment, something impossible would have resulted 
from something possible. It was therefore never 
possible. And speaking generally it is impossible 
that anything should happen difiFerently from what 
has happened.* 

Far less exacting was Philo, a pupil of Diodorus, 
when he declared everything to be possible, even 
should outward circumstances prevent it from being Pomhle. 

(a) On the 

9, 17 ; Ep. ad Fam. ix. 4 ; Pint, 
Sto. Rep. 46, p. 1055; Alex. 
Aph. in Anal. Pr. 69, b ; Schol. 
in Arist. 163, b, 29; SimpL, 
ibid. 66, b, 7 ; Philip, ibid. 163, 
b, 19 ; Boeks, de Interpret. Op. 
ed. Basil, 364 ; Prantl, Gesch. d. 
Log. i. 19. The above sentence 
is expressed here thus : Possible 
is threp ^ iffriy ii\ri6k5 ^ l^ffrcu. 

* Comp. Epict. Diss. ii. 18, 
18 : we ought to be proud of 
moral actions, ohK M r^ rhy 
Kupu{>ovra iptorria'ai, and just 
before : ito/iif'bi' ffo^itrfidTtov ^A.v- 
aaSt iroX^ KOfi^&Ttpov rov KvpifimV' 
ros. He also mentions, ii. 19, 
9, treatises of Cleanthes, Chry- 
sippus, Antipater, and Archi- 
demus on the Kvpi€{twv. Chry- 
sippus could only meet it (ac- 
cording to Alex, in Anal. Pr. 
67, b, in Schol. in Arist. 163, a, 
8), by asserting that possibly 

the impossible might result 
from the possible. Other pas- 
sages are quoted by Prantl, p. 
40, 36. 

' So ^o\ovdur is rendered, 
thus keeping up the ambignity 
of the original, where &KoAi>v- 
0UV means not only sequencfi 
in time, but causal sequence. 

* Epict. Diss. ii. 19, 1 ; 6 
Kvpieimv \6rfOi hirh roio^ctv rivwv 
iupopfi&y iiparrjo^eu ^offcrat * koi- 
vrjs yhp oUffris fuixris ro7s rpurl 
rovTots irphs ItWriKa, ry *irav -^a- 
p€\ri\vdhs &\ri0^s hvayKcuov tJvai,* 
KoX r^ * dvvar^ iZ^yarov fi^ duco- 
KovOelv,* Kol r^ ' dvyarhy ttvat h 
oih' iffnv kk-riBh ofh* (laraL,' 
ffvvi^^v T^v fiJixV^ rairrjv 6 Ai6- 
Boipos ry T«v iro^wv Bvoly ir(6a- 
y6rriTi avvxjph(F9ro itphs irapd- 
vraffiv rov firiH^y ttyou Zvyarhy 
t oUt* iffTiv iX-nB^s ofir' forou. 
CJonf . Cie. De Fato, 6. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, realised,^ provided a thing has only the capacity 
' therefor. This was undeniably a departure from 
the Megarian teaching. 
(h) Onhy- In regard, too, to the truth of hypothetical sen- 
^enUnces. ^^^^^^ Philo laid down criteria different from those 
of his teacher.^ Diodorus declared those conditional 
sentences to be true, in which the apodosis neither 
can be false, nor ever could be false if only the pro- 
tasis be true. Philo says more vaguely, those are 
true in which there is not a true protasis and a false 
apodosis. The question here appears, however, to 
have been one of formal correctness in expressing 
logical rules.' 
(c) Gn the With Diodorus' view of the possible the assertion 
words/ appears to be connected, that no words are meaning"^ 
less or ambiguous, each one always meaning some- 
thing, and everyone requiring to be understood ac- 
cording to this meaning : * he will only allow that 
meaning of a word to be possible which is actually 
present to the speaker's mind. Eespecting Diodorus, 
however, and the whole Megarian School, our infor- 

> Alex.'%imp\. in Categ.- Philo, do not affect his real 

Schol. in Arist. 66, a, 39, b, 6 ; meaning at all, however much 

Boeks, 1. c. PanthoideSf accor- they may follow from the words 

ding to I^ict. Diss. ii. 19, 6, of his definition. Hence Prantl, 

attempted by another turn to p. 454, can hardly have quite 

avoid Diodorus' argument, by grasped the meaning of Philo. 
disputing the sentence that "• Gell. xi. 12 ; Aminon,, De 

every thing past must be of Interpret. 32, a ; Schol. in Arist. 

necessity. 1103, b, 15 ; Simpl. Categ. f. 6, 

* See Sext.. Pyrrh. ii. 110 ; h. In order to show that every 

Math. viii. 113 ; i. 309 ; Oic. word has a meaning, Diodorus, 

Acad. iv. 47, 143. according to Ammon., gave the 

« The inferences by which name AA\a/A^)i' to one of his 

Sesetus, M. viii. 115, refutes slaves. 

Digitized by VjOO^IC 




mation is far too scanty to enable us to bring the 
fragments of their teaching into a perfectly satis- 
factory context,' granting that enough is known to 
evidence one and the same tendency in all these 
thinkers. It may then be assumed as probable, that 
the Megarians did not confine themselves to those 
logical subtleties which are known to us ; our notices 
are, however, too deficient for us to be able to attri- 
bute others to them with anything like certainty.^ 

A peculiar position in the Megarian philosophy is 
that occupied by Stilpo. Ever ready to defend the 
teaching of the School at the head of which he stood, 
clinging to imiver sal con ception s, maintaining the im- 
possibil ity of becom ing, the unity^ of being,^ and the 
(U fferen ce between sensuous and rational perceptions,* 
he at the same time combines with his Megarian 
views theories and aims which originally belonged to 
the Cynics. In the first place he rejected, as did An- 


(6) That 

of Stilpo, 






(a) Beery 



cat6 rO' 
jected as 

» RiUer's (Rh. Mus. ii. 310, 
Gtesch. der. Phil. ii. 140) con- 
jectures seem in many respects 
to go beyond historical proba- 
bility, and beyond the spirit of 
the Megarian teaching. To 
illustrate this here would take 
too long. 

' Prarvtly p. 43, believes that 
the majority of the sophisms 
enumerated by Aristotle really 
belong to the Megarians. Most 
of them, however, would ap- 
pear to come from the So- 
phists; in proof of which a 
reference may be made to 
Plato's Euthydemus, which 
can hardly have the Megarians 
in view. Towards Euclid Plato 

would not have used such lan- 
guage, 38 may be gathered 
from the Sophistes, 246, C, 
and the introduction to the 
Theaetetus ; and Eubulides had 
not appeared when Plato com- 
posed the Euthydemus. That 
the Megarians made use of 
many of the Sophistic fallacies, 
is of course not denied. Only 
nothing for certain is known 
of such use. 

» See pp. 260,3; 263,4. 

* Compare the passage in 
Aristocles quoted p. 259, 1, in 
which ol ittpX IftiXirmva koX rohs 
MeyapiKohs are spoken of in 
addition to the Eleatics. 

T 2 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




tisthenes, every combination of subject and predicate, 
gince the conception of the one is different from the 
conception of the other, and two things with different 
conceptions can never be declared to be the same.^ 
The doctrine of the unity of being,^ in as far as it can 
be shown to have originated with Stilpo, may be 
deduced as a corollary from this view ; for if nothing 
can be predicated of anything else, it follows that 
being can alone be predicated of itself. 

Truly cynical are also Stilpo's moral principles. 
The captious logic to which other Megarians devoted 
themselves with speculative onesidedness, to the entire 
neglec t of the_ethical element,* was also a charac- 

» In Pha, adv. Col. 22, 1, p. 
1119, thellpicvrean Stilpo raises 
the objection: rhv Oehp hvaipit- 
aBai fir' ahrov, x4yovros Mr^pov 
kripov firi KarjfyopueBcu, x&s 
yhp BiwrSfitOay fi^ \4yomes &v- 
Bptnrop i,yaBhv . . . &XX' &pBpu- 
irov AvOptnroy koH X^P^^ ayoBhv 
kyoBov ; . . . and again, c. 23 : 
ob fi^v iiWii rh 4x\ ^riKvuvos 
rotovr6v itrriv. el trcpl Tinraw rh 
Tp4x€iP Karriyopovfi€v, oH ^Y^trx 
rafirbr elytu ry tr^pl o5 Korriyo- 
pciTCU rh Karjjyopo^fifPoVf &AA* 
ir^pop fih^ kvOp^fp rov rl ^v 
ttvcu rhv x6yoVf Irtpov Z\ ry 
kyoB^ ' Koi vdKiv rh tmroy tlvai 
rov rp4xoma ttvou dia<p4p€iv ' 4fca< 
r4pov ykp kfrcuroifACPot rhv \6yov 
oh rhv afnhv kvodiho/Afv Mp 
kfJi^Tv. BBev kfjMprdv€iyrohs€T€pov 
Mpov Karriyopovvras. The very 
same thing wiU be found in the 
case of Antisthenes. All the less 
reason has Plutarch to regard 

Stilpo's assertion as a mere 
joke. The same proof is given 
by Simpl Phys. 26, a. : ^ik 5^ 
tV *«pi ravra (the distinction 
between the different cate- 
gories and the ambiguity of 
words) Ayvotav koX oi MtyapiKoi 
K\riB4tnfs ^i\6ffo<pot Xot$6vrts ws 
4papyTJ vpSraffiv^ Zri &v ol Kiryoi 
Ircpot ravra Zr^pd iffri Ka\ tri 
rk crepa K^x^p^t^fai kW^fiXuv, 
4Z6kovv li€tKv6pat avrdv aSrov K€- 
X<»purfi4pop l^Koorov : i.e. since 
the conception of ^Kpdriis 
fiouffiKbs is a different one to 
that of "^Kpdrris \€vk6s, the 
one according to Megarian 
hypothesis must be a different 
person to the other. 

« See p. 263. 

■ Excepting Euclid's doc- 
trine of the oneness of virtue, 
nothing bearing on Ethics is 
known as belonging to the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



teristic of Stilpo ; ^ and perhaps it is only an accident Chap. 

that no captious assertion or discovery of his is on 1_ 

record. His character, however, is not only always W^^ 
mentioned by biographers with the greatest respect,*^ good 
but many traits are recorded of him, which identify ^J^t^y^ 
his morality with that of the Cynics. The highest 
good he placed in that ap ath^ which forbids the 
feeling of pain even to exist. The wise man is re- 
quired to be in himself independent, and not even to 
stand in need of friends to secure happiness.^ When 
Demetrius Poliorcetes enquired after his losses by the 
plunder of Megara, he gave for answer that he had 
seen no one carrying ofif his knowledge.* When re- 
minded of the immoral life of his daughter, he re- 
joined, that if he could not bring honour on her, she 
could not bring disgrace on him.^ Banishment he 


* See Chiysipp. in PhU, Sto. 
Rep. 10, 11, p. 1036, and pp. 211, 
2 ; 210, 6. 

2 See p. 261, note 3. 

• Sen, Ep. 9, 1: *An merito 
reprehendat in quadam epistola 
Epicnms eos, qui dicnnt sapi- 
entem se ipso esse contentum 
et propter hoc amico non indi- 
gere desideras scire. Hoc ob- 
jicitur Stilboni ab Epicuro et 
iis, qnibns siimmum bonum 
visum est animus impatiens.' 
And a little further on : * Hoc 
infer nos et illos interest : 
noster sapiens vincit quidem 
incommodum omne sed sentit ; 
illorum ne sentit quidem.' 
Connected herewith is the ob- 
servation of Stilpo in Teles, in 
Stoh, Floril. 103, 83, in order 
to warn from excessive grief 

at the death of relatives. 
What AUx, Aphr. De An. 103,. 
a, remarks also probably applies 
to Stilpo, that the Megarians 
look on A<rxA.T7(rio as rrpwrov 


* Pluta/roh, Demet. c. 9; 
Tranquil. An. c. 17, p. 476 ; 
Puer. Ed. c. 8, p. 6; Sen, de 
Const. 6, 6 J Epis. 9, 18 ; Diog, 
ii. 116: Floril. Joan, Damasc. 
ii. 13, 163 iStob, Floril. ed. 
Mein. iv. 227). That Stilpo 
thereby lost his wife and 
daughter is probably a rheto- 
rical exaggeration of Seneca, 
The well-known < omnia mea 
mecum porto,* attributed by 
Seneca to Stilpo, is by Cicero 
referred to Bias of Prisne. 

* Phit, An. Tran. c. 6 ; Diog, 
ii. 114. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, would not allow to be an evil.' To be independent 
XII / 
'_ / of everything without, and to be absolutely free from 

j wants — ^this highest standard of Cynicism for the wise 
I man — was also his ideal. And lasily, the free attitude 
/ towards religion adopted by the Cynics was also shared 
by him, and finds expression in many of his utterances.* 
Whether, and if so, in what way, he attempted 
(<?) The to set up a logical connection between the Cynic and 
MegaHan Megarian theories, we are not told. In itself, such a 
tJieories task was not difficult. With the assertion that no 
cally ha/r- subject can admit a predicate, Euclid's hostile attitude 
monisedhy towards proof by analogy is closely related ; this too 
rests on the general proposition that things dissimilar 
cannot be compared. It is also quite in harmony 
with the negative criticism of the Megarians ; and if 
Euclid denied to the good any form of manifoldness, 
others might add, as Antisthenes really did, that the 
one and not the manifold could alone exist. More- 
over from the oneness of the good the apathy of the 
wise man might be deduced, by considering that all 
else besides the good is unreal and indifferent.' The 
denial of the popular faith was also involved in the 
doctrine of the one, even as it was first taught by 
Xenophanes. In the Cynic element as adopted by 

* In the fragment in Stoh, these subjects could not be 
Flor. 40, 8. discussed in the street. The 

* According to Diog, ii. 116, story in Plut. Prof, in Virt. 
he proved that the Athene of 12, p. 83, of the dream in which 
Phidias was not a God, and he conversed with Poseidon is 
then before the Areopagus apparently invented to justify 
evasively replied that she was his omission to sacrifice. 

not a Qfls but a 0(d, and when ' Conf. Diog. ii. 106, and p. 
Crates asked him as to prayers 263, 3. 
and sacrifices, replied that 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





Stilpo, there were not wanting, it is true, points of 
approach to the Megarians, but it was a deviation 
from the original form of the Megarian teaching to 
allow explicitly such an element to exist. 

Closely connected with the Megarian school is IL Elea^n- 
the Elean-Eretrian, respecting which, however, very ^^^^ 
little iufcmnation has reached us. Its founder a. Its 
wasC! Ph8Bdi y of Elis,* the well-known favourite of ^**<<^- 

» See Preller'g Phaedo's Life 
and Writings, Rhein. Mus. 
fur Philol. iv. 391. Phaedo, 
the scion of a noble Elean 
family, had been taken cap- 
tive not long before the death 
of Socrates, probably 400 or 
401 B.C. Preller concludes 
from Phaedo, 89, B., that he 
was not eighteen years of age 
at the time of the death of 
Socrates; it may, however, be 
asked whether Phsedo followed 
Athenian customs in his dress. 
He was employed as a slave 
in most humiliating services at 
Athens, until one of Socrates' 
friends (besides Crito, Cebes 
and Alcibiades are both men- 
tioned, the latter certainly not 
being at Athens at the time, 
and probably not being alive) 
redeemed him at the interces- 
sion of Socrates. See Diog. ii. 
31, 105 ; Suid, under *aiZȴ ; 
and Hesyoh, Vir lUustr. ^ai^tov ; 
GeU, N. A. ii. 18; Maerob. Sat. 
1. 11 ; Lact, Inst. iii. 25, 15 ; 
Orig, c. Cels. iii. 67 ; do, N. D. 
i. 33, 93; AtJien, xi. 607, c. 
Preller not improbably finds 
the source of the story in 
HermippuSy rrtpX T«r 8(airpc- 
i(Miyc«y iv irai8c(f ZovKav, Qrote 
(Plato, iii. 603) objects to this 

story, that no conquest of Elis 
took place at that time, where- 
as Diog. says of Phsedo : trv- 
vti.'hM Tj? irorp(8i. He therefore 
infers that M^Xios should be 
read for 'HXcibs in Biog. ii. 105. 
Yet Phsedo is called an Elean 
by both Qell. 1. c. and Strahoy 
ix. 1, 8, p. 393, and his school 
called Elean. If Elis itself 
did not fall into an enemy*s 
hand, its suburbs were occu- 
pied by the Spartan army in 
the Elean- Spartan war, pro- 
bably in the spring of 408 B.C. 
{Xen, HeU. iii. 2, 21, and PreU 
leVy on the passage, Ourtius, Gr. 
Gesch. iii. 149. 767.) Phaedo 
appears to have been taken 
captive at that time. Most 
probably Phaedo left Athens on 
the death of Socrates. But 
whether he at once returned 
home, or repaired with others 
to Euclid at Megara, is un- 
known. IHog, ii. 105, mentions 
two genuine and four spurious 
dialogues of his. His Zopyrus 
is even quoted by Pollux, iii. 
18, and the Antiatheista in 
BeJtker's Anecdot. i. 107. Panae- 
tius seems to have had doubts 
as to all the treatises passing 
under his name, Biog. ii. 64. 
He is called by Gellius * philo- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





Socrates.^ On the death of his teacher, Phaedo 
collected a circle of disciples in his native town, who 
thence received the name of the Elean philosophers.* 
Plistanus is named as his successor,^ and Archipjlus 
and Moschus as his pupils.* Beyond the names we, 
however, know nothing of any one of them. By 
Menedemus and Asclepiades,* the school was removed 
to Eretria, and it was then called the Eretrian.^ 

sophos illnstris,* and his writ- 
ings are spoken of as * admo- 
dum elegantes.' Even Diog, 
ii. 47, enumerates him among 
the most distinguished Socra- 

> Compare for his relations 
to Socrates the Phaedo, 58, D. 
89, H. 

' 'HA.ciaico(, Strabo, ix. 1, 8, p. 
393 ; Dioff. ii. 105, 126. 

* Dioff. ii. 106. 

* 126. Perhaps these men 
were not immediate pupils of 
his. Since nothing is said of 
Menedemus' studying under 
Plistanus, the latter, we may- 
suppose, was no longer alive. 

* The account given by IHoff, 
ii. 126 of these philosophers in 
his life of Menedemus (probably 
taken from Antigonus of Cary- 
stus and Heraclides Lembus) is 
as follows : Menedemus of Ere- 
tria, originally a tradesman, 
had been sent as a soldier to 
Megara. There he became ac- 
quainted with the school of 
Plato (so Diog. says with Plato ; 
but this is chronologically im- 
possible) and joined it together 
with his friend Asclepiades, both 
of them (according to Athsn, 
iv. 168, a) earning a living by 
working at night. Soon, how- 

ever, they joined Stilpo at 
Megara, and thence went to 
Moschus and Archipylus at 
Elis, by whom they were in- 
troduced to the Elean doc- 
trines. Returning to their 
native city and becoming con- 
nected by marriage, they con- 
tinued together in faithful 
friendship until the death of 
Asclepiades, even after Mene- 
demus had risen to highest 
rank in the state, and had 
attained wealth and influence 
with the Macedonian princes. 
The sympathetic, noble and 
firm character of Menedemus, 
his pungent wit (on which 
Plut. Prof, in Virt. 10, p. 81 ; 
Vit. Pud. 18, p. 536), his mode- 
ration (IHvg, ii. 129; Athen, 
X. 419, e), his liberality and 
his merits towards his country, 
are a subject of frequent 
panegyric. Soon after the 
battle of Lysimachia, which 
took place 278 B.C., he died, 
possibly by suicide — ^the resxilb 
of a grief which is differently 
stated— at the age of seventy- 
four. According to Antigonus 
in IHoff. ii. 136, he left no 

• StrabOf ix. 1, 8; Diog, ii. 
105, 126 ; Oic, Acad. iv. 42, 129. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Flourishing as was its condition here for a time, it 
appears soon to have died. out. ^ 

Among its adherents ^ Phsedo and Menedemus are b. iu- 
the only two respecting whose opinions any informa- ^^ ^-^ 
tion is to be had, and that information is little teacUmj. 
enough. By Timon ^ Phsedo is classed with Euclid 
as a babbler, which points to an argumentative ten- 
dency.* Perhaps, however, he devoted himself to 
Ethics * more than Euclid did. Menedemus, at least, 
appears to have been distinguished from his cotem- 
porary quibblers by having directed his attention to 
life and to moral questions. He is, however, spoken 
of as a sharp and skilful disputant.^ If he hardly 
went the length of Antisthenes in declaring every com- 
bination of subject and predicate impossible,^ it still 
sounds captious enough to hear that he only allowed 
aflBrmative judgments to be valid, but rejected nega- 

* Plut, Tranqu. An. 13, p. 

^ Athen. iv. 162, e, mentions 
a certain Ctesibius as a pupil 
of Menedemus, but what he 
says of him has nothing to do 
with philosophy. A treatise 
of the Stoic Sphagrus against 
the Eretrian School in 260 
B.C. is the last trace of the 
existence of the Eretrian 
school. IHog. vii. 178. 

* Biog, ii. 107. 

* The Platonic Phasdo does 
not give the slightest ground 
for thinking, as 8tein?iart, Plat. 
W. iv. 397, does, that Phaedo 
was inclined to a sceptical 
withholding of judgment. 

* Compare the short but 
clever fragment on the subject 

of morals, which Sen. Ep. 94, 
41, quotes from Phaedo. 

• Diog. ii. 134 : ^jv Sh Svctko- 
ravtyfiros 6 M. iral iv r^ ffvv64ff6ai 
^vaajn-ay^yiffTOs, • iarps^cro t€ 
vphs vdyra Koi €vp€<ri\6yfi' ipia- 
TiKdiirar6s T6, KaQd ^(tip 'Ait*- 
ff64vns iv Ziadoxcus, ^v. The 
verses of Epicrates in Athen. 
li. 69, cannot well refer to this 
Menedemus, since they are also 
directed against Plato, who 
was then still living. 

' Even this is asserted. Ac- 
cording to Phys. 20, a (Schol. 
in Arist. 330, a, 3), the Ere- 
trians asserted fjiifiiv Karh juc- 
^tvhs KarriyopeiaOai. They ap- 
pear in this passage to be con- 
founded with the Cynics and 
the later Megarians. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




tive and hypothetical ones." Chrysippus* blames 
him as well as Stilpo, for their obsolete fallacies.* It 
may also be true that he disputed the view that pro- 
perties exist apart from particular objects, in the 
spirit of Cynic nominalism.* On the other hand, it is 
asserted that in positive opinions he was a Platonist, 
and only employed argument for amusement.* From 
what has been already stated, this seems incredible, 
nor can it be deduced from his disputes with Alex- 
inus.^ Indeed, it is in itself most improbable.^ Still 
so much seems to be ascertained, that, together with 
Stilpo, he attributed to ethical doctrines a value 
above criticism. For we not only hear that he ad- 
mired Stilpo, who was his teacher, more than any 
other philosopher,® and that he was himself often 

&s oh^ofi&s ixo^ffas ri Koivhy 
ov<rta)8cs iv Hh roTs KttB^Kcurra koX 
trvySerois (ntapxo^ffas. 

• Heraclides in Diog. ii. 135. 
Ritter^s conjecture, Gesch. d. 
Phil. ii. 156, that this Mene- 
demus is confounded with Me- 
nedemus the Pyxrhaean, whom 
we know from Phut, adv. Col. 
32, p. 1126, 8, and Athen., is 
hardly to be trusted. For 
Heraclides Lembus had treated 
the Eretrians in detail, as we 
learn from Diog., so that it is 
difficult to imagine such a con- 
fusion. The context also tells 
against that view. 

• Diog, 135, 136, says that he 
was constantly attacking Alexi- 
nus with violent derision, but 
yet did him s6me service. 

^ Di4>g. 134 : rSav 5^ 5i5a(ri«l- 
Xmv rSov vtpl nxdrtova Kcii, Ecvo- 
Kpdrriv . . . Kar€<pp6y€i, 

• Diog, 134. 

» Diog, ii. 135. 

« Plut. 8to. Eep. 10, 11, p. 

' Hermann, Ges. Abh. 263, 
refers to Menedemus the verses 
of John Salisbury (Enthet. ed. 
Peters, p. 41), in which a certain 
Endymion is mentioned, who 
csklled fides, opinio vera, and 
error, opinio faUax, and who 
denied that you could know 
what was false, for no know- 
ledge could be deceptive. The 
allusion does not, however, 
appear probable. The continu- 
ation, that the sun corresponds 
to truth, and the moon to false- 
hood, that error and change 
bear rule under the moon, but 
truth and immutability in the 
domain of the sun, certainly 
does not come from Menedemus. 

* Simpl, Categ. Schol. in 
Arist. 68, a, 24 : ol hirh t^s 
*Eperp(a$ ay^povv tAs woiSrriTcts 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



derided for being a Cynic,^ but we know that he 
busied himself with enquiring as to the chief good 
in a practical way. He affirmed that there was onlyl 
one good — intelligence,* which, to his mind, was 
identical with a rational direction of the will.' What 
are commonly spoken of as distinct virtues, are, he 
maintained, only different names of this one virtue ;* 
and, by his activity as a statesman,'* he proved that 
he did not aim at dead knowledge. In his free views 
of religion he likewise reminds us of Stilpo and the 
Cynics.® ^eno, however, having about this time 
united the most valuable and lasting parts of the 
M^arian and Cynic teaching in the more compre- 
hensive system of the Stoics, stragglers, such as the 
Eretrians, soon found themselves unable to exercise 
any important influence. 




' Diog, 140 : rh fihy odv trpOra 
KavtippoyetTOj K6<av Kod Kiipos {nrh 
rSav *'E.ptrp€lwy hxo^av. 

" Cic. Acad. ii. 42: Diog. 
123 : Tp^s 5^ rhp tirdvra iroAA^ 
rh hrfodk iir60€TO irSaa rhy hpiB- 
fjihv jroi 61 yotil(oi vXeiw r&y 4ica- 
r6y • and in 134 are some ques- 
tions to prove that the useful 
is not the good. 

• Diog, 136 : Koi tot 4 rivos 
iuco6iTas, is fiSyiffrou ityaOhv tXri 
rh irdvToav iniruyxdy€iv &v tis 
4iri0vfi€Tf «7irc * TToXh 9h fiu^oy ' 
rh iwiBvficty S>v 8c7. 

* Pint, Virt. Mor. 2 : Mev^- 
^nos fihv 6 4^ *Ep€Tplas hyilpei 
T&y Aperuy Kal rh ir\^$os koI ras 
ita^phsf &s fitas (^anis Kcd x^ta- 
/ityffs iroWotSt 6y6ficuri * t6 yitp 
avrh ffoMppocr^vriy koX &i/8pe(ay koX 

9iKouo<riyriy XiyttrBoif KoBAnrep 
fiporhy «ral JkyQpwirov. 
. * That he exercised a con- 
siderable influence on his 
friends by his teaching and 
his personalty is shown by 
Phftarchy Adul. et Am. c. 11, 
p. 56 ; Diog, ii. 127-129. 

• Diog. 125: "RiwvSs t€ inifit^ 
\»5 Kararp^xovros rS»v fuivrcw, 
v€Kpohs ainhv iviffipdrrtiv ll\€yc' 
against which a trait of per- 
sonal fear, such as is described 
by Diog. 132, proves nothing. 
Josephtis, Antiquit. Jud. zii. 2, 
12. TeHullian'8 Apologet. 18, 
language on Menedemus and 
his belief in Providence, is 
probably as worthless as the 
whole fable of Aristeas. 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 





Chap. The Cynic, like tiie Megarian School, ar ose from a 

fusion of the teaching of Socrates with the doctrine 

^f^f^^ of the Eleatics and Sophists. Both schools, as has 

Cynic8, been already remarked, were united by Stilpo, and 

passed over into the Stoa in Zeno.^ The founder of 

Cynicism, .^tisthenes, a native of Athens,^ appears 

* It is accordingly not com- 
patible with an insight into 
the historical connection of 
these schools to insert the 
Cyrenaics between the Cynics 
and the Megarians, as Tenne- 
mann, Hegel, Marbach, Braniss, 
Brandis, and Striimpell have 
done. Otherwise it is of no 
moment whether we advance 
from the Megarians to Antis- 
thenes and thence to Aristip- 
pus, or vice versa; for these 
three schools were not being 
developed from one another, 
but grew up side by side from 
the same origin. The order 
followed above appears, how- 
ever, to be the more natural 
one ; the Megarians confining 
themselves more closely to the 
fundamental position of So- 
crates; Antisthenes consider- 
ing its practical consequences : 

and Aristippus its effects on 
happiness, according to his own 
imperfect conception of it. 

* Antisthenes was the son of 
an Athenian and a Thracian 
slave (Diog. vi. 1 ; ii. 31 ; Sen, 
De Const. 18, 6 ; Pkit. De ExU. 
17, p. 607, calling his mother ; 
and ClemenSf Strom, i. 302, C. in 
calling himself a Phyrgian, are 
confounding him with Dio- 
genes, or else must have been 
thinking of the anecdote in 
Dioff. vi. Ij Sen. and PhU., 
1. c. ; for further particulars 
consult Winkelmanny Antisth. 
Fr. p. 7 ; Miiller, De Antisth. 
vita et scriptis Marb. 1860, p. 3). 
He lived, according to Xen, 
Mem. ii. 5 ; Sym. 3, 8 ; 4, 34, 
in extreme poverty. The time 
of his birth and death is not 
further known to us. Diodor. 
XV. 76, mentions him as one of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



to have become acquainted with Socrates only late 
in life,^ but ever afterwards to have clung to him * 
with enthusiastic devotion,^ imitating his critical 
reasoning, though not always without an element of 
captiousness and quibbling. Early in life he had 
enjoyed the instruction of Gorgias,* and included other 
Sophists likewise among his friends.® Indeed he had 
himself appeared Sophist-like as a pleader and teacher, 
before he made the acquaintance of Socrates.^ It 
was therefore only a going back to his old mode of 
life, when on the death of Socrates he opened a 
School.^ At the same time he did not neglect to 



the men living about 366 B.C. 
and Plut. Lycurg. 30, Sch., 
quotes a remark of his on the 
battle of Leuctra. According 
to Eudocia ( Vllloison's Anecd. 
i. 56), he attained the age of 
70 years, which would place 
his birth in 436 B.C., but the 
circumstance is uncertain. 

* We have every reason to 
refer Plato's y(p6vTwv rots bi^tfid- 
Btifif Soph. 251, B., to him, as 
will be subsequently seen. The 
only thing against it is the 
account in IHog. vi. 1, that An- 
tisthenes was praised by So- 
crates for his valour in the 
battle of Tanagra. This objec- 
tion applies even if the battle 
referred to was not the victory 
of the Athenians in the year 
466 B.C. (in which it is impos- 
sible that Antisthenes can have 
taken part), but the battle 
menti6ned by Thuoyd, iii. 91 
in 426 B.C., or that which was 
fought late in the autumn of 
423 B.C. between Delium and 
Tanagra (Thuo. iv. 91), which 

is usually called the battle of 
Delium. The story, however, 
is of no account, for Diog, ii. 
31 quotes the same words of 
Socrates in a different way. 

* Xen. Mem. iii. 11, 17 ; Sym. 
4, 44 ; 8, 4-6. Plato, Phaedo, 
59, B. ; JDiog, vi. 2 ; Ibid. 9. 

* This at least is the descrip- 
tion given of him by Xen. 
Symp. 2, 10; 3,4; 6; 4,2; 6; 
6, 5 ; 8. 

* Biog. vi. 1, referring to the 
rhetorical school of Gorgias; 
nor does Antisthenes deny his 
teaching. At a later period 
Antisthenes wrote against Gor- 
gias, Athen. V. 220, d. 

* According to Xen. Symp. 4, 
62, he introduced Prodicus and 
Hippias to Callias, and recom- 
mended to Socrates an unknown 
Sophist from Heraclea. 

* Hermippus in Dioff. vi. 2 ; 
Hieron. c. Jovin. ii. 14. 

' In the yvfu^ffiov of Cyno- 
sarges, Diog. vi. 13 ; Oattling, 
Ges. Abh. i. 253, which was 
Intended for those who, like 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





commit his views to writing in numerous treatises,' 
the language and style of which are most highly 

Among the pupils ' of Antisthenes, Diogenes * of 

himself , were of mixed Athenian 
blood, Phet, Themist. c. 1. Ac- 
cording to Diog. vi. 4, he had 
but few pupils because of his 
harsh and severe treatment of 
them. It is not reported that 
he required payment, but he 
appears to have received volun- 
tary presents. Diog. vi. 9. 

> Diog, vi. 15 (comp. MUUor, 
1. c, p. 25) gives a list of these 
writings, which, according to 
Diog. ii. 64, was in the main 
approved of by Pansetius. They 
are by him divided into 10 
volumes. Excepting a few 
fragments, the onLj ones which 
are preserved are the two 
small and comparatively worth- 
less declamations, Ajax and 
Ulysses, the genuineness of 
which is fully ascertained. 
Winckelmann (Antisthenis 
Fragmenta, Zur. 1842) has 
collected all the fragments. 
Because of his many writings, 
Timon called him rarro^v^ 
^XcS^ra, Diog. vi. 18. 

* See Theopomp. in Diog. vi. 
14 and 15, and vii. 19 ; Dionyg. 
Jud. de Thuc. c. 31, p. 941 ; 
JSpictet. Diss. ii. 17, 36 ; Phry- 
nich. in Pkdft. Cod. 158, p. 101, 
b ; I^nto, De Orat. i. p. 218 ; 
Longin. De Invent. Rhet. Gr. 
ix. 569 ; Cie. ad Att. xii. 38 ; 
and Lvboian adv. Indoct. c. 27 ; 
Theopompus passes the same 
opinion on his spoken ad- 

» Caliedby^mto^fojMetaph. 
viii.3; 1043, b, 24, *AKrur«^rciM» 

but in later times universally, 
and probably even in the time 
of Antisthenes, called Kvrucoi, 
partly from their place of meet- 
ing, partly because of their 
mode of life. Conf. Diog. vi. 
13; Ltict. Inst. iii. 15. g. E. 
Schol. in Arist. 23 ; a, 42 ; 36, 
a, 6. Antisthenes was already 
called car\oK<m9 {Diog. 1. c), 
and Brutus speaks disparag- 
ingly of a Cynic {Plut. Brut. 
34). Diogenes boasted of the 
name {Di4)g. 33 ; 40 ; 45 ; 65-^ ; 
Stoh. Eel. ii. 348, u, a), and the 
Corinthians placed a marble 
dog on his grave. {Diog. 78.) 
* Steinharty Diogenes, AUg. 
Bncyc. sect. i. bd. xxx. 301 ; 
G&ttling, Diogenes der Cyniker. 
Ges. Abh. i. 261 ; Bayle, Diet. 
Art. Diog^ne is always worth 
reading. Diogenes .was the 
son of the money-changer 
Kikosios at Sinope. In bis 
youth he had been engaged 
with his father in issuing 
counterfeit coin, and in conse- 
quence was obliged to leave his 
country^ Diog. vi. 20, quoting 
authorities, gives further par- 
ticulars, but is not always 
faithfully explained by Cfiftt- 
ling, 251. Conf. IHd. 49, 56; 
Pka. Inimic. Util. c. 2; De 
Exil. c. 7, p. 602; Musonius 
in Stob. Floril. 40, 9 ; ZiMnan, 
Bis Accus., 24 ; Dio Chrys. Or. 
viii. We have no reason to 
doubt this fact, as Steinhart 
does, p. 302, although the ac- 
counts may disagree in a few 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Sinope is alone known to fame, that witty and eccen- 
tric individual, whose imperturbable originality. 


details. In Athens he became 
acquainted with Antisthenes, 
who, for some reason or other, 
drove him away with a stick, 
but was at length overcome by 
his perseverance. (^Diog. 21 ; 
^VUm, V. H. X. 16; Eleron, 
adv. Jovin. ii. 206.) When this 
took place is uiJoiown, and 
Bayle's conjecture that the 
condemnation of Socrates was 
the cause of. Antisthenes' 
hatred of mankind, is not to 
be depended upon for chrono- 
logical reasons. Diogenes now 
devoted himself to philosophy 
in the Cynic sense of the term, 
and soon surpassed his master 
in self-denial and abstemious- 
ness. He himself mentions 
Antisthenes as his teacher, in 
the verses in Phet, Qu. Conv. ii. 
1, 7, 1. He appears to have 
lived a very long time at Athens, 
at least if the account of his 
meeting with Philip before the 
battle of Chaeronea may be 
trusted {Diog. 43; Phut, de 
Adulat. c. 30, p. 70 ; De Exil. 
c. 16, p. 606 ; Epict, Diss. iii. 
22, 24 ; it is not, however, 
stated that Diogenes fought at 
Chseronea, as OottUng^^. 266, 
says, nor is this probable of a 
Cynic), according to which he 
was then still living at Athens. 
But it is also possible — and 
this agrees with his principle 
of having no home — that he 
may have visited other places 
as a wandering preacher of 
morals, particularly Corinth. 
{Diog. 44; 63; PUa. Prof . in 
Virt. 6, p. 78 ; Dio Ch/rys, Or. 
vi.; VaLMax. iv.S; JMog, ii. 

66; vi. 60.) According to 
Diogenes, he met Aristippus 
in Syracuse. On some such 
journey he fell into the hands 
of pirates, who sold him to 
Xeniades, a Corinthian. For 
this event see JHog. vi. 29 ; 74 ; 
Plut, Tran. An. 4, p. 466 ; An. 
Vitios, s. 3, p. 499 ; Stob. Floril. 
3, 63 ; 40, 9 ; I^ict. Diss. iii. 
24, 66 ; Philo, Qu. Omni. Prob. 
Lib. 883, C. ; Juli(m, Or. vii. 
212, d. Xeniades appointed 
him the instructor of his sons, 
and he is said to have admir- 
ably discharged this duty. 
Highly esteemed by his pupils 
and by their parents, he re- 
mained with them till his 
death. At this time occurred 
the meeting with the younger 
Dionysius, mentioned by Plut. 
Timol. 16, and the conversa- 
tion with Alexander, so greatly 
exaggerated by tradition. 
{Diog. 32; 38; 60; 68; Sen. 
Benef. v. 4, 3; Juveruilj xiv. 
311 ; Theo. Progym. c. 5 ; Juliam, 
Or. vii. 212.) The most simple 
version of it is that f oimd in 
Plut. Alex. c. 14; De Alex. 
Virt. c. 10, p. 331 ; ad Princ. 
Inerud. c. 5, p. 702. Diogenes 
died at Corinth, on the same 
day, it is said, as Alexander 
(PltU. Qu. Conv. viii. 1, 4, p. 
717 ; Demetr. in IHog. 79), i.e. 
323 B.C., at an advanced age 
(Diog. 76, says almost ninety, 
Cens. Di. Nat. 16, 2, says 
eighty-one). The story of his 
death is differently told. {Diog. 
76 ; 31 ; Plut. Consol. ad Apoll. 
c. 12, p. 107 ; ^Uan, V.H. viii. 
14; Cent. 1. c; Tatian adv. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




coarse humour^ strength of character, admirable even 
in its excesses, fresh and vigorous mind, have made 
him the most typical figure of ancient Greece.* 

Of the pupils of Diogenes,^ Crates is the most 
celebrated.^ By his influence, his wife Hippar- 

Gr. c. 2 ; Hieron, adv. Jovin. ii. 
207, m ; Lucian, Dial. Mort. 21, 
2 ; Oic. Tusc. i. 34, 104 ; Stob. 
Floril. 123, 11.) Most probably 
he succumbed to old age. The 
Corinthians honoured him with 
a solemn burial and a tomb, 
and Sinope erected a monu- 
ment to his memory {Diog. 78 ; 
Ptmsan, ii. 2, 4 ; Anth. Gr. iii. 
558). Diog. 80, mentions many 
writings which bear his name. 
A portion of them were, how- 
ever, rejected by Sotion. Others 
denied that he left any writ- 
ings. Theophrastus' treatise: 
T«v Aioy4vov5 (Twaywy^ (in Diog, 
V. 43), by Orote, Plato, iii. 508, 
to the Cynic Diogenes, cer- 
tainly refers to Diogenes of 

* That he exercised an irre- 
sistible charm over many per- 
sons by his manners and words 
is attested by Diog, 75, and 
confirmed by examples like that 
of Xeniades, Onesicritus, and 
his sons. 

* Amongst them are known, 
besides Crates and Stilpo: 
Onesicritus, the companion 
and biographer of Alexander, 
with his sons Androsthenes and 
Philiscus {Diog, vi. 75 ; 73 ; 80 ; 
84 ; Phit, Alex. 65 ; for parti- 
culars respecting Onesicritus 
in MUllevy Script. Rer. Alex. 
M. p. 47) ; Mqnimus of Syra- 
cuse, the slave of a Corinthian 
money-changer, who was driven 

away by his master for throw- 
ing money out of the window 
in Cynic fanaticism, one of the 
most distinguished Cynics, and 
the author of several treatises, 
amongst them of 'raiyvui tnroi^ 
XaKil^viff iJL€fjuyfi4va (^Diog, vi. 
82); Menander and Hegesiw 
{Diog. vi. 84), and perhaps 
Bryson the Achaean {iHd. 85). 
Phocion is also said to have 
been a pupil of his {Diog. 76 ; 
Phoc. c. 9); but Plutarch was 
not aware of it ; and as Phocion 
adhered to the Academy, there 
is probably no truth in the 
story beyond the fact of a pass- 
ing acquaintance. 

' The Theban Crates, gener- 
ally called a pupil of Diogenes, 
but by Hippobotus, a pupil of 
Bryson the Achaean {Diog. vi. 
78), flourished about 328-324 
B.C. {Diog. vi. 87). Since, how- 
ever, stories are current not 
only of his tilting with Stilpo 
{Diog. ii. 117), but also of his 
quarrelling with Menedemus 
in his later years {Diog. ii. 131 ; 
vi. 91), his life must have lasted 
to the third century. Another 
Crates, a pupil of Stilpo, who 
is mentioned Diog. ii. 114, must 
not be confounded with the 
Cynic Crates. He is probably 
the same as the Peripatetic of 
that name in Diog. iv. 23. In 
zeal for the Cynic philosophy. 
Crates gave away his consider- 
able property. For the different 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



chia * and her brother Metrocles * were gained for the 
Cynic School. The names of several immediate and 
remote pupils of Metrocles ^ are known, through whom 
the School may be traced down to the end of the third 
century. Yet all its nobler features were cultivated 
by the Stoics from the beginning of the third century, 
only toned down and supplemented by the addition 
of other elements also. Henceforth Cynicism was 
useless as a special branch of the Socratic philosophy. 
Subsequent attempts which were made to preserve 
its distinct character only resulted in caricatures. 



and very conflicting accounts 
see Diog, vi. 87; Phd, Vit. 
Aer. Al. 8, 7, p. 831 ; Apul, De 
Mag. 22 ; Floril. ii. 14 ; SiwipL 
in Epict. Enchir. p. 64 ; Phi- 
lostr. V. ApoU. i. 13, 2 ; Hterofi. 
adv. Jovin. ii. 203. He died at 
an advanced age {Diog. 92, 98). 
Diog. 98 mentions some letters 
of his, the style of which re- 
sembled Plato's, and some tra- 
gedies, and Demetr. De Elocut. 
170, 259, also mentions moral 
and satirical poems. Accor- 
ding to JuUdJii Or. vi. 200, b, 
Plutarch also wrote an account 
of his life. From Biog. 91; 
Apul. Floril. 14, we learn that 
he was ugly and deformed. 

* The daughter of an opulent 
family from Maronea in Thrace, 
who from love to Crates re- 
nounced her prospects and 
habits of comfort, and followed 
him in his beggar's life, Diog. 
96 ; Apul. Floril. ii. 14. 

■ Formerly a pupil of Theo- 
phrastus and Xenocrates, but 
won over to Cynicism by 
Crates (Telos. in Stob. Floril. 
97, 31, vol. iii. 214, Mein.), 

after having been cured by him 
of his childish idea of suicide. 
At a later period, however, he 
hung himself to escape the 
burdens of age, Diog. 94. Re- 
specting his apathy, see Plut. 
An. Vitios. Ad. Infelic. c. 3, p. 
499 ; for a conversation of his 
with Stilpo see Phd. Tranqu. 
An. 6, p. 468. 

• Diog. 95. His pupils were 
Theombrotus and Cleomenes ; 
the former was the teacher of 
Demetrius, the latter of Ti- 
marchus, and both of them of 
Echecles. Contemporary with 
Echecles was Colotes, Diog. vi. 
102. Contemporary with Me- 
trocles was Diodorus of Aspen- 
dus, mentioned in Zeller's Phil, 
d. Griech. vol. i. 289. At an 
earlier period, under Antigonus 
the Great, lived the Cynic 
Thrasylus {Phut. Reg. Apoph- 
theg. Antig. 15, p. 182 ; Vit. 
Pud. 7, p. 531) ; under one of 
the Ptolemies, Sotades, whose 
Cynical abstinence Nonnv*, 
Exeg. Histor. Greg. Naz. 26 
(Greg, in Julian. Invect. ed. 
Eton. 1610, p. 136) mentions. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Two of the basest of its later representatives are 
known to us in the persons of Menedemus * and Me- 
nippus.* Soon after it became extinct as a School, 

> A pnpil of Echecles, and 
previously, as it would seem, 
of the Epicurean Colotes {Diog, 
vi. 96, 102), of whom we only 
hear that he occasionally ap- 
peared in the mask of a fury, 
to add greater force to his 
philippics. A pupil of his is 
Ktesibius, whom Athen, i. 15, 
c. iv. 162, e, names as a 
cotemporary of Antigonus (Qo- 

» Menippus was, according 
to Diog. vi. 99, conf. GelL 
N. A. ii. 18, 6, originally a 
Phcenician slave. He is said to 
have amassed a considerable 
fortune by money-lending 
(Hermippus in Diog. 1. c), the 
loss of which he took so much 
to heart that he hung hiniself . 
His career must fall in the first 
half of the third century. Dio- 
genes indicates that, placing 
him between Metrocles and 
Menedemus, it being his habit 
to mention the philosophers of 
this school in chronological 
order; also the story that he 
was the author of a treatise 
respecting the festivities of 
Epicurus' birthday {Diog. vi. 
101), and of an Arcesilaus 
{Athen. xiv. 664, c; the Acade- 
mician, of this name died at a 
' great age in 240 B.C.) ; also 
the circumstance that a portion 
of his writings was attributed 
to a Zopyrus {Diog. vi. 100), 
probably the friend of the Sil- 
lograph Timon {Ibid. ix. 114) ; 
al^ Probus who (Virg. Eel. vi. 
31) calls Menippus much 
earlier than Varro; also Lu- 

dan Ikaromen. 15, who makes 
Menippus an eye-witness of a 
number of things, all of which 
happened about 280 B.C. In 
the face of so many clear 
proofs, the language of Diog. 
vi. 99, who, speaking of Me- 
leager living about 100 B.a. 
says, TOW icai' ainhy yefiofi4voVf 
cannot go for much. There is 
probably here a mistake in the 
text; perhaps ocar' is written 
for fitr\ or as Mtsohe, p. 32, pro- 
poses, we ought to read rov Kot 
ahrov ytPOfi4ifov kwikov. Pro- 
bably this Menippus is the 
same person as Menippus of 
Sinope, called by Diog. vi. 95, 
one of the most distinguished 
men of the school of Metro- 
cles ; for Diog. vi. 101 in 
counting up the various Me- 
nippuses does not mention him 
as well as this Menippus, but 
calls him as Athen. xiv. 629, e, 
664, e, likewise does M^i'imroj 6 
kvvik6s. The name Stytfircirr is 
thus explained : his .piaster was 
a certain Baton of Pontus 
(Achaicus in Diog. vi. 99), with 
whom he probably lived at 
Sinope. (Compare also Nxetz- 
sche^s Beltr. z. Quellenkunde 
u. Kritik des Laert. Diogenes. 
Basel, 1870, p. 28.) Aocorc&igto 
Diog. 13 treatises of Menippus 
were in circulation, of which he 
gives the titles of seven, and 
Athen. the titles of two more. 
That they were not his own 
production is probably only 
enemy's slander. All these 
writings appear to have been 
satires. His proficiency as a 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


and only reappeared at a very much later time as an Chap. 
offshoot of Stoicism.* 

The Cynic philosophy claims to be the genuine ^* ^***^ 
teaching of Socrates.^ The many-sidedness, however, (i) Dep^e- 
of Socrates, whereby the intellectual and the moral ^^^^^/ 
elements were completely fiised, and the foundations kn&fvledga. 
thus laid of a more comprehensive and deeper-going 
science, was above the powers of Antisthenes. Natur- 
ally narrow and dull,* but fortified with singular 
strength of will, Antisthenes admired* above all 
things the independenc e of his master's character^ 
t he strictne ss of his principles^ his self-control, and 
his imiversal che erfulness in every position in life. 
How these moral traits could be in a great measure 
the result of free enquiry on the part of Socrates, and 
how they could thus be preserved from narrowness, 

satirist may be gathered from school. It would fully explain 

the fact that he was not only these statements that he was 

imitated in ancient times by attaching himself as a writer 

Meleager {Diog. vi. 99), but to Menippus. 
also by Varro in his Satirae * See p. 286, 2, and Diog, vi. 

Menippeae {Cic, Acad. i. 2, 8 ; 11. 

GelL N. A. ii. 18, 6, also ' This his teaching proves 

Maoroh, Saturn, i. 11 ; conf. independently of the opinions 

Prohus, 1. c), and that even of opponents, such as Plato^ 

Lucian gives him a prominent Theaetet. 165, E., in which the 

place in his dialogues. Conf. words vKXripohs koL iivmlnrovs 

Mese, Varr. Sat. Rel. p. 7. Mfxl^ovs and /mU* €? ifiowrot 

* Besides the above. Me- refer without doubt to Antis- 

leager of Gradara should be thenes and not to the Ato- 

mentioned, could we be sure mists; Soph. 261, B. yfp6vTw 

that he was a member of the roh h/^tfjdBwi . . . ^h Ttvlas 

Cynic School. But the mere rris »«pl fpp6vri<nv ttrfiffcwt ri 

fact that Athen, iv. 167, 6, in roiavra r^BavfuucSffi, Aritt. Me- 

addressing a Cynic calls him taph. v. 29, 1024, b, 33, viii. 3*^ 

6 wp^yopos ifuay, and that he is 1043, b, 23. 
perhaps mentioned by Diogenes * As Cke. De Orofe. ill. 17, 62, 

as a Cynic, does not prove and Diog. vi. 2, remark, appa- 

the continuance of the Cynic rently on the same authority. 

u 2 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




he did not understand ; nor did he see that the prin- 
ciple of a knowledge of conceptions reached far be- 
yond the limits of the Socratic platform. 41LiSH2!^- 
ledge not immediately subservient to ethical purposes 
he accordingly rejected as unnecessary, or even as 
injurious, as the offspring of vanity and love of ge3=^ 
sure. Virtue, he maintained, is an affair of action, 
and can dispense with words and with wisdom. All 
that it needs is the strength of will of a Socrates.^ 
Thus he and his School not only regarded logical and 
physical enqiiiries as worthless, but passed the same 
opinion on all arts and sciences which have not the 
moral improvement of mankind ^ for their immediate 

* i>%. 11, Antisthenes teach- 
es avrApKti 5i riiv hptriiy '^phs 
MoufJLOiflwy fiili€phs irpo<r9€Ofi4yriv 
Bti mS ^Kparunis Iffx^s- 'rfipr' 
ii^TTIv rSiV ipywv eTvati mV* 
X07WV -KKtWrwv 9€Ofji4yriv fi'fn^ 

2 Biog. 103: kpiffKu olv ow- 
TOiS rbv \oyiKhp icoi rhp jpvcriKhv 
r6vov Tcpiaiptiyt ifKpfp^s 'Api- 
<rrwvi TV Xiy, fiSyv ^^ -npotr^x^iv 
r^ ilBiK^. According to Dio- 
des, Diogenes said — what 
others attribute to Socrates 
or Aristippus (see p. 150, and 
Plwt, in Bus. Pr. Ev. i. 8, 9)— 
that we ought to leam om 
roi iv firyipoKTi xaxSv t' iiryMv 
T6 r4rvKrai, irapairovvrtu Zk Koi 
Tck iyic6KyM . . . Ttpiaipovcri 8^ 
KoX yfufitrpiap Kcii, fiovaiie^p koI 
wdpra rk roiavra. When a dial 
was shown him, Diogenes re- 
plied, that it was not a bad 
instrument to avoid being late 
for meals. Ibid. 27: rohs fe 
ypafifmriKohs iOavfiaCc [Diog.] tA 
fi^ rod 'OSvfftriws Kcuch iufaCn- 

rovvras tA 5* IBia kypoovpras * 
Ktd fiiip K<d robs fiovtriKobs rks 
fifv iv rf \^p<f x^P^^' apfi6r- 
reffdMf iudpfioffra 8* ^x^"' '''Vs 
^UX^$ rk fjOri' rohs fJuxBiifiariKohs 
itTo$\4Tr€ip fi^y irphs rhv ijKioy icai 
r^y iTcX^i^v, tA 8' ip To<r2 Tpdy- 
fiara irapopfy' rohs ^ropas K4- 
yciy fJLty ifftrovSaKCPOu rh hUcoua, 
Tpdrreiy 8^ firiHafMs. The pas- 
sage on astronomers may pos- 
sibly have been supported by 
the story of Thales falling 
into a well whilst contemplat- 
ing the heavens. An answer 
thereto is the passage in the 
Theaetetus 174, A, 175, D, on the 
Thracian maiden who upbraid- 
ed him for so doing. The 
mother of Antisthenes was a 
Thracian slave, and the words 
which Plato puts into the 
mouth of the Thracian girl 
closely resemble those quoted 
by Diogenes. It would also 
tally with the character of 
Antisthenes, that he as an 
itiFoddemos should be charged 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



object; for, said Diogenes,^ as soon as any other 
object intervenes, self is neglected. Even reading and 
writing Antisthenes declared could be dispensed with.^ 
The last statement must in any case be taken 
with considerable limitation,^ nor can the Cynic 
School as a whole be regarded as so hostile to culture 
as this language would seem to imply. In fact, some 
decided language as to the value of culture is on 
record coming from Antisthenes,* Diogenes,* Crates,^ 



with not troubling himself 
about the general conception 
of things. Diog. 73 says of Dio- 
genes: yuowrunis re KotXy^tayL^TpiKris 
koHL aurrpoXoylas koI r&v rotothwy 
afi€\t?y &s kxJP^^^^^ *^^ ^^^ hvay- 
Kaiav. Conf. Diog, 24; 39; 
Juliariy Or. vi. 190, a ; Seneca, 
Bp. 88, particularly § 7, 32 ; 
Stoh. Floril. 33, 14 ; id, 80, 6 : 
an astronomer pointing to a 
map of the heavens says : 
olroi €i<rip oi irXap^fityoi rSov 
iurrdpMv ' upon which Diogenes 
replies, pointing to those pre- 
sent : IA1I ^ciSou ' oif T^p ouroi 
cicriv oi vXavt&ficvoi, &AA' oZroi. 
The saying of Diogenes in 
SUnpL De Ooelo, 33, b, Schol. in 
Arist. 476, b, 35, that even an 
ass takes the shortest cut to 
his food and to the water, was 
probably meant as a hit at 
geometry and its axiom of the 
straight line. 

* Ezcerp. e Joan. Damasc. ii. 
13, 61. (Stob. Floril. ed. Mein.) 

* Diog. 103 : ypdfifMra yovu 
fiil fjLayOdyuy K^Mtrxw 6 'Ayri- 
a04irfis robs ai&ippovas ytvoyL^vovs, 
iva. yAi hiwrrpi^oivro rots &XA.OT- 

* It would be hardly credible 

in a man so fond of writing. 
If it is not altogether a fancy, 
it may either rest upon some 
individual expression, such as, 
that it would be better not to 
read at all than to read such 
nonsense, or it is based upon 
more general statements such 
as that quoted by Diog, 5, that 
wisdom must not be written in 
books, but in the soul. 

* Exc. e Floril. Jo. Damasc. 
ii. 13, 68: Set rohs tkiXXoyras 
kyaQohs Jiv^pas ytv4i<re<rQai rh 
Illy ffcofjM yvfjivaurlots itaKtiVf r^y 
8^ ^vxhv roui^iety. Ibid. 33, in 
answer to the question volos 
arc^cofos KaX\i(rr65 4<my, he 
replied : 6 &irb TcuSelas. 

^ Diog. 68: r^y Tcudelay 
c7ir€ Toh fi^y viois ffoo^poff(nn\yy 
rois 8i iFp€(rfivr4pois wapofAvBlayf 
Tots 8^ w4vrf<n uXovroi', ro7s 8i 
irXovaiois K6fffiov thai. — Exc. e 
Floril. Jo. Damasc. 13, 29: ^ 
irai8c£a dfiola icrl XP^^V ^"""^ 
^dytp' Koi yh,p rifiiiy Hx^^ '^'"'^ 
vo\vr4\tiay. Ibid. 74, 75. 

• Diog. 86 : raCr* tx" ^^^ 
tfiaffov jcai ifppSynaa koI /ierck 
Mowr&y (r4fi»* Mriy. rh 9k iroXXa 
Kol 6\fiia rvipos ffxapr^e. A pa- 
rody of this verse is the epitaph 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




and Monimus.* Diogenes too is said to have zealously 
impressed on his pupils the sayings of poets and of 
prose writers.* Besides, it cannot be conceived that 
men, who wrote so much that was good, should have 
declared war against all culture. One thing we may 
however take for established, that the value of culture 
was exclusively estimated by its efficacyjafjodudng. 
thig^ynic type of virtue. Hence this School depre- 
ciated all speculative knowledge, only studying Ipgui 
and physics, in as far as these sciences seemed neces- 
sary for ethical purposes.* From this judgment we 
are not justified in exempting even the founder.* 

on Saxdanapalos in Clem, Stro- 
mat. ii. 411, D. 

* Floril. Jo. Damaac. ii. 13, 
88 : M6vifxos . . . 1^ Kpeirrov 
cTfOi rvfp\hp fl atralUfUTOif ' rhv 
fihy 7^ €tj rhv fiddpov, rhy 8* 
€«y rh fidpc^pov ifiirlirrciv. 

* IHoff. 31, according to Eu- 
buliis ; KaT€txov Si ol iraiScs iroX- 
A& iroiriTUv Kcd ffvyypeupeoev Ktd 
Twv avrov ^oyevovs, woffdv r* 
ll^odov aivTOfJLOv irphs rh eitfivriiAS- 
vcvffToy hrfiffxei. 

* Xrisehe, Forschnngen, 237. 
See Rittery ii. 120. 

* Although the division of phi- 
losophy into Logic, Ethics, and 
Physics can have been hardly 
introduced in the time of Anti- 
sthenes, and hence the words 
in Diog. 103 cannot be his, it 
does not thence f oUow that the 
statement there made is false. 
Amongst the writings of Anti- 
sthenes some are known to us, 
which would be caUed logical 
writings, to use a later division ; 
others are on physical subjects. 
To the first class belong Utpl 

\4^fwSy *A\^6€to, Ilfp) rod Zia\4~ 
y€<rOai, ^dBvy fj irepl rod am- 
Xc7C(v, U€p\ Sio^^icrov, Ucpl ovo- 
fxdruVf Hepl ovofidrotv xp^^^^^t 
Ilepl iporHiatco? Kal kicoKpiff^wSy 
TiepX 8^{i7s Kol iTTLffr-fifiris, A6^ai 
fl ipurriKhs, TLepl rov fMvddyciv 
vpofiKijuara. To the second, Utpl 
d^mv ipvaemst Uepl tpicftos (per- 
haps the same which Cicero 
mentions N. D. i. 13, 32), 'Ep«6- 
nj/ta ir^pl ^ia^ws, A commen- 
tary on the writings of Hera- 
clitus, which Diog, ix. 16 men- 
tions, does not belong to him. 
See Zeller, Phil. d. Griech. i. 
627, and KrUoJie, p. 238. So 
little, however, is known of 
these writings, that no con- 
clusions can be arrived at 
which contradict the above 
assumptions. His logical writ- 
ings, to judge by their titles, 
appear to have contained those 
polemical dissertations on con- 
ceptions, judgments, and ex- 
pressions, which were required 
as a foundation for critical 
researches. Of the writings 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


The utterances of Antisthenes on logic, so fax as they Chap. 
are known to us, consist in a polemic against the 
philosophy of conceptions, the object of which is to 
prove the impossibility of speculative knowledge. 
Likewise his remarks upon nature have for their ob- 
ject to show, what is natural for man. For this no 
deep research seemed necessary to him or his fol- - 
lowers ; ^ a healthy intelligence can tell everyone 
what he ought to know ; anything further is only 
useless subtlety. 

In support of these views Antisthenes put forward (2) Logic. 
a theory, based it is true on a leading position of 
Socrates,^ but one, nevertheless, which in its expanded 
form and in its sceptical results plainly shows the 
disciple of Gorgias. Socrates having required the 
essence and conception of every object to be investi- 
gated before anything further could be predicated 
of it, Antisthenes likewise required the conception of 
things what they are or were to be determined.^ 

on Physics, it is not known * Even Cicero ad Attic, xii. 
whether they treat of other 38, calls Antisthenes *homb 
than those natural subjects, acutus magis quam eruditus.' 
which Antisthenes required im- * Compare the relation of 
mediately for his Ethics, in this theory to the doctrine of 
order to bring out the differ- ideas, and what IHog, 39, Simpt 
ence between nature and cus- 236, b, m, 278, b, u, says of 
torn and the conditions of a Diogenes, with what the Scho- 
lif ^ of nature. Even the liast on Arist. Categor. p. 22, b, 
treatise ircpl d&oav fp^ffcus may 40 says of Antisthenes. Sext. 
have had this object. Pro- Pyrrh. iii. 66, only asserts of a 
bably Plato, Phileb. 44, C, Cynic in general that he re- 
reckoned Antisthenes among futes the arguments against 
the tidxa iflvovs Keyoficvovs rk motion by walking up and 
wfpl ^6<np, only because in all down. Similarly Diogenes in 
questions about morals and Diog. 38. , ^ 
prevailing customs, he invari- ' Diog, vi. 3 : TpSor6s re &pi- 
ably referred to the require- <raTo \6yov ^ijc^v • xAyos itrrXv 6 
menta of nature. rb rl ^yfj lo-ri 9ri\&if, Alexander 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Confining himself, however, exclusively to this point 
of view, he arrived at the conclusion of the Sophists,* 
that every object can only be called by its own pecu- 
liar name, and consequently that no subject can admit 
a predicate diflFering from the conception of the sub- 
ject. Thus it cannot be said that a man is good, but 
only that a man is human, or that the Good is good.^ 
Every explanation, moreover, of a conception con- 
sisting in making one conception clearer by means of 
another, he rejected all definitions, on the ground 

in Top. 24, m, Schol. in Arist. 
266, b, 12, on the Aristotelian 
ri ^v •IvQx says that the simple 
ri iv, which Antisthenes want- 
ed, is not sufficient. 

» See ZeUer, Phil. d. Griech. 

* Aritt. Metaph. v. 29 ; 1024, 
b, 33: *Ajm<rB4tnfis ^cto tirfiBus 
fiifdky &|tfltfy Kiytadau ir\^y r^ 
oUcfl^ \iy^ ty iip^ iy6s' 4^ &P 
avfifiaiycy /ij) tJyai ityriXeyuy, 
(TxcSby Hh fiijSi }pM€(r6au, Alex- 
ander on the passage. Plato^ 
Soph. 261, B. : tQtv y^, olfxcu, 
rots T€ vfois Kol T&y yepd^rwy 
rois 64nfia64a'i Boiyriy trap^axhfco^ 
/icv * tvBhs yh.p ayri\afi4a'Bcu irayrl 
rrpSx^^pov &s hZx/varoy rd rt 
iroWk %y Koi rb %y iroX\3t ftyou^ 
KoX $^ irov x"^?^^^^^ ^^^ 4&yT€s 
iyaShy \4y€iy &y6pwwoy, dWh rh 
fihy dyoBhy dyaOby, rby 8i &v0p(o- 
TToy JSofBpwKW. — Cf. Philebus 14, 
C. ; AriM, Soph. El. c. 17, 176, 
b, 16 ; Phys. i. 2, 186, b, 26 ; 
Simpl. in loc. p. 20 ; Isokr. Hel. 
i. 1, and particularly what is 
said p. 276, 1, respecting Stilpo. 
Hermann, Sokr. Syst. p. 30, 
once thought to discern in 
these sentences of Antisthenes, 

a great progress as proving 
that Antisthenes recognised all 
analytical judgments a priori 
as such to be true, but has 
since been obliged to modify 
his opinion (Plat. i. 217, Ges. 
Abh. 239), on being reminded 
by Bitter (Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 
133) that Antisthenes could 
only be speaking of identical 
judgments. Still he adheres 
to it so far as to state that by 
the teaching of Antisthenes, 
philosophy for the first time 
gave to identical judgments an 
independent value. In what 
this value consists, it is hard 
to say, for nothing is gained 
by recognising identical judg- 
ments, nor has it ever occurred 
to any philosopher to deny 
them, as Hermann, Ges. Abh. 
asserted though without quot- 
ing a single instance in support 
of it. Still less can it be a 
forward step in philosophy to 
deny all but identical judg- 
ments. On the contrary, such 
a denial is the result of an 
imperfect view of things, and 
is destructive of all know- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



that they are language which does not touch the 
thing itself. Allowing with regard to composite 
things, that their component parts could be enume- 
rated, and that they could in this way be themselves 
explained, with regard to simple ones, he insisted 
all the more strongly that this was impossible. 
Compared these might be with others, but not de- 
fined. Names there might be of them, but not con- 
ceptions of qualities, a correct notion but no know- 
ledge.^ • The characteristic of a thing, however, the 


> Arigt. Metaph. viii. 3 ; 
1043, b, 23 : ficrre h hiropla, %v 
ol *AvTi(r04y€iot Kol ot ofhcos diroi- 
8cvT0i ^wdpovpf l;(€t riph Kcuphy^ 
Sri o^K IcTTt T^ Ti laTJK dplffaa-Bai, 
rhy yap Upop \6yop thai ficucpSv — 
see Metaph. xiv. 3 ; 1091, a, 7 ; 
and Schwegler on this pas- 
sage — iiWh, TTotov ti4y rl 4<mv 
€vS4x^rou Ka\ 8i5(£|cu, &<rv€p &p^ 
yvpov rl fJL4y 4ffriv, oH^ Srt 5' otop 
Karrlrfpos. &or' ohaia^ tffTi fikp 
lis 4pS4x^(u ttpot ^pop Koi \6yoPy 
oTop TTJs (rvpB4roVf 4dp t€ cuaOtir^ 
4dp T€ I'OijT^ ^ • 4^ Sp 5* aSrri 
trpdyrtep oifK ^<rrip. That this, 
too, belongs to the description 
of the teaching of Antisthenes, 
appears from Plato, Theaetet. 
201, E., and is wrongly denied 
by Brandis, ii. b, 503 ; the ex- 
pressions are indeed Aristo- 
telian. Alexander, on the pas- 
sage, explains it more fully, 
but without adding anything 
fresh. That this view was not 
first put forward by the dis- 
ciples of Antisthenes, appears 
from Plato's Theaetet. 201, E. : 
4yd» yhp aZ 41i6Kovp iuco{t€ip ripup 
Sri tA /iir trpwra &(rwep€\ trroix^la, 
f| S»p rjfifis TC ffvyK^lfxeBa Koi 

tJaAc, \6yop ovK ?X®*- **^^ y^P 
KoB' atnh CKaffrop bpoyuiaai ix6pop 
fitly trpoacivcip ih ov^hp &Wo 
ivparhpf ohff &5 tffnp oHO* &5 ovk 
iarip .... 4v€\ ovih rh cunh 
ovih rh 4k€ipo ov^k rh tKturrop 
o68c rh fiSpop wpoa'oia'r4oPt ovd* 
&?0<a iroAA.3t roiav^a * ravra luv 
yap irfptrp4xopra Ttaci vpoa'<l>4pc- 
cr^cu, trtpa 6pra 4Kfipup oTs irpoarl- 
06TOU. biip 5i, cfircp ^p Hvparhp 
ainh \4ytaBai Koi etx^y onceiop 
avrov \6yoPj &vcv rwp AXXatp 
atrdprup \4yea6ai. pvp 84 abvpa- 
rop elpai Sriovp rap irpdrroip 
pti&rjiai \6y^ • ov yiip eJpai ainf 
dXA* ^ bpOfidCfffOoi fjiSpop' 6pofia 
ykp iUpop ix**"* "^^ 5* 4k roxnap 
^tr\ ffuyKslfifpa, Hxrinp ahrk •K4ir- 
\fKraiy oStco Kcd rd opSjxaia avra>p 
(TofiirXaKipra Koyop y€yop4pai * 
opofxdrcDP yhp avixTrKoK^p tlpai 
\6yov ovfflap. And 201, C : I^t? 
84 r^p jxkpfierii \6yop B6^ap kXridij 
4irt(rriiiuiiiP ^Ti'Oi, r^p 84 &\oyop 
4Krhs 4Trurrrjfiris ' koX &p pikp /iif 
4(m \&yo5y oIk 4in<rr^ra tlpai, 
o^coffl Kal 6pofJLd(coPy & 8* ^x^'* 
4iriffr'nrd. This whole descrip- 
tion agrees with what has been 
quoted from Aristotle so en- 
tirely, trait for trait, that we 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 







name which can never be defined, the conception of 
the subject which is borrowed from nothing else, and 
therefore can never be a predicate^ consists only in 
its proper name. By this it is known when it can be 
explained by nothing else. All that is real is stri ctly 
individual. General conceptions do not express the 
nature of things, but they express men's thoughts 
about them. Plato having derived from the Socratic 
demand for a knowledge of conceptions a system of 
the most decided Realism, Antisthenes derives there- 
from a Nominalism quite as decided. General con- 
ceptions are only fictions of thought. Horses and 

cannot possibly refer it to any 
one else but Antisthenes. It 
is all the more remarkable 
that Plato repeatedly (201, C. ; 
202, C.) afltois the truth of his 
description. In modem times, 
Schleiermaeher, PI. W. ii. 1 and 
184, was the first to recognise 
the reference to Antisthenes. 
His opinion is shared by Bran- 
dUy Gr.-R6m. Phil. ii. a, 202, f ; 
Susemihl, Genet. Entw. d. Plat. 
Phil. i. 200; SoJmegler and 
Bonitz on Arist., 1. c, but con- 
tradicted by Herinann (Plat. 
499, 669) and Stallbavm (De 
Arg. Theaetet. ii. f ). SteinhaH 
(Plat. W. iii. 16, 204, 20) finds 
that the explanation of know- 
ledge, as here given, corre- 
sponds with the mind of Antis- 
thenes, but refuses notwith- 
standing to deduce it from him. 
Schleiermacher (as Brandis, ii. 
a, 203 ; Susemihl, pp. 200, 341, 
remark) has not the slightest 
right to tliink the reference is 
to the Megarians in Theaet. 
201, D. What is there stated 

agrees most fully with the 
statements of Aristotle touch- 
ing Antisthenes, whereas no 
such principle is known of the 
School of Megara. We may, 
therefore, endorse Schleier- 
macher 's conjecture (PI. W. ii. 
b, 19) that the Cratylus was 
in great part directed against 
Antisthenes — a conjecture 
which appears to harmonise 
with the view that Antisthenes 
was the expounder of Heracli- 
tus. It is opposed by Brandis, 
ii. a, 285, f. Nor yet would 
we venture to attribute to An- 
tisthenes a theory of monads 
connecting it with the theory 
of ideas (Sttsemihlj i. 202, in 
connection with Hemumn, Ges. 
Abh. 240). What we know of 
him does not go beyond the 
principle, that the simple ele- 
ments of things cannot be 
defined ; what he understood 
by simple elements may be 
gathered from the example 
quoted from Aritt. Metaph. vii. 
3, of the silver and the tin. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



men are seen, not, however, the conception of a 
horse or a man.' From this position he opened a 
campaign against his fellow pupil, with whom he was 
for other reasons not on good terms,^ but his fire was 
met with corresponding spirit.' Holding these views 



* Simpl, in Categ. Schol. in 
Arist. 66, b, 46, says : r&v 8i 
TraXoMv ol yukv iurjfpow r&f iroiSni- 
ras r€\4oSt rh iroihp ffvyxt^povurts 
ftyeu (the terminology of course 
belongs to the Stoics) fiinrep 
*APTi<rB4vri5, Us irorc HXxirvyi 

* tmroy fikv 6p&^ bncSri^a tk obx 
6p&,^ to which Plato gave the 
excellent answer: True, for 
you have the eye with which 
yon see a horse, but you are 
deficient in the eye with which 
you see the idea of horse. 
IHd, 67, b, 18 ; Ibid. 68, b, 26 : 
'APTiaBiviiif Koi roifs irepl a^hv 
\4yovras, HvBpwirov ipw &pOptoiir6' 
Tijra 5i obx tpSt. Quite the 
same, Ibid, 20, 2, a. Diog, vi. 
53, tells the same story of 
Diogenes and Plato, with this 
difference, that he uses rpoirc- 
foT>jj and KvaJdSrrjs instead of 
iuepmrdrris. Amman, in Porph. 
Isag. 22, b, says: *Ayri(r04yris 
l\€7e tA y4irn Kcd r^ cl8ij iy 
tiKais hripoicus cTfoi, and then 
he mentions Mpwr^ris and 
irrr^r-ns as examples. The same 
language, almost word for 
word, is found in Tzetz. Chil. 
vii. 606, f . Plato is no doubt 
referring to this assertion of 
Antisthenes, when in the Parm. 
132, B., he quotes an objection 
to the theory of ideas, fi^ ray 
tiH&y iKourrop ^ rointoy v6fifxa kuI 
oiibafMV €iin^ TpoiHiicp iyyiyvtffBou 
&?i\o6i ^ iy ^'vxats. 

* The character and position 
in life of the two men was 
widely different. Plato must 
have felt himself as mach re- 
pelled by the ptebeian roughness 
of a proletarian philosopher 
as Antisthenes would have 
been annoyed by the refined 
delicacy of Plato. 

' Compare (besides what is 
said, p. 292, 2) Plato, Soph. 251, 
C, and the anecdotes in Biog. 
iii. 36, vi. 7 ; also the corre- 
sponding ones about Plato and 
Diogenes, which are partially 
fictions, in vi. 25 ; 40 ; 64 ; 58 ; 
JEli€my V. H. xiv. 33 ; Theo. 
Progym. p. 205 ; Stob. Floril. 13, 
37. As to the picked fowl 
story in Biog. 40, compare 
Plato, Polit. 266, B. ; G'eUling, 
p. 264. For the Cynical attack 
which Antisthenes made on 
Plato in his l4Biay, see Biog. iii. 
35, vi. 16; Athen. v. 220, d, 
xi. 507, a. A trace of Ants- 
thenes' polemic against the 
doctrine of ideas is found in 
the Euthydemus of Plato, 301, 
A. Plato there meets the as- 
sertion of the Sophist that the 
beautiful is only beautiful by 
the presence of beauty, by say- 
ing: 4hy oZy irapaytyrirai troi 
fiovs, fiovs c7, fcal iri vvv iy<& trot 
irdpufu AioyxMr6Bupos cT; We may 
suppose that Antisthenes really 
made use of the illustration of 
the ox, to which Plato then 
replied by making use of the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




it is only natural that Antisthenes should have at- 
tached the greatest importance to enquiries respecting 
names.^ Stopping at names and refusing to allow 
any further utterances respecting things, he in truth 
made all scientific enquiry impossible. This fact he 
partially admitted, drawing from his premises the 
conclusion that it is impossible to contradict your- 
self.^ Taken strictly the inference from these pre- 

same illustration in the person 
of Dionysodorus. Steinhourt 
(Plato's Leben, 14, 266) con- 
siders the Ijieiav spurious. He 
will not credit Antisthenes 
with such a scurrilous produc- 

* Antisth. in Epict. Diss. i. 
17, 12 : apxh ircudc6<r€oas ri t&p 
ovofidruv iwltrK^is. It is a pity 
that we do not know more accu- 
rately the sense and the con- 
nection of this saying. As it 
is, we cannot judge whether it 
required an individual enquiry 
into the most important names, 
or only a genend enquiry into 
nature and the meaning of 
names, which the principles 
contained in the above should 
develope. Respecting the 
theory that Antisthenes held 
to the etymologies of Heracli- 
tus, see p. 297, 1. 

2 Arigt. Metaph. v. 29; see 
296, 1 ; Top. i. 11 ; 104, b, 20 : 
ovK iariv avri\4yctv, Kadd'Kcp 
l^ij ^Airriffdivrjs, which Alex. 
(Schol. in Arist. 732, a, 30; 
similarly as the passage in the 
topics, Ibid. 259, b, 13) thus 
explains : ^ero 8i 6 *Avri<r04vvis 
cKcurrov rav 6pray K4yf<r$au rf 

oiKcitp \6y(p fl6lKp Koi €Va kKlluTTOV 

\6'yov that . . . i^ &v koI avvd- 

yttv ivtipotro Zri fi^ tariv kvri- 
\4ytiv' robs fxhp ykp i.vrtK4yorTas 
irtpl TWOS Bid<f>opa \4yutf ^^e(A.6<v, 
fi^ ZivaaBai 8^ irepl avrov Btcup6- 
povs Tohs \iyovs <f>4p9(r6ai r^ iifa 
rhu ouceioy ixdaroy etvcu * cva yiip 
ivhs eJvai iced rhy \4yovra ircpl 
avTov \4ycip (ju&yov &<rre el iicv 
irtpX rov TpdyfMTOS rov avrov 
\4yoi€y^ ri avrik tLy \4yoi€v 
&AX^A.ots (cty yhp 6 irepl iuhs 
Koyos') \4yoyT€i 5i ravrk oitK tiv 
ayri\4yoifV &AA^A.oi5 • €t Hh 5io- 
<p4povTa \4yoiey, obKtri \4^€iy 
ainobi vtpl rod ainov. Prantl, 
Gesch. d. Log. i. 33, mentions 
later writers, who, however, 
only repeat Aristotle's sayings. 
In exactly the same way Plato's 
Dionysodorus (Euthyd. 286, 
E.) establishes his assertion, 
that it is impossible to contra- 
dict : €l<r\v kKdar^ r&v tvrocv 
\6yoi ; Hdvv yt. OvKOvy &s tariv 
€Ka<rrov fj &5 obK f^trrtv ; '(is ^ariy. 
El yhp fji4iAvi\ffaiy 1^^, S> Kriiffunrc^ 
Koi &pri iiTfBtt^afity fiti^4va \4yov- 
ra &s OVK ICTi. rh y^ fxh ^v 
ov?if\s 4<pdv7i \4yuv. HSrepoy ody 
. . . &,prt\4yoifi€y ttv rov avrov 
irpdyfxaros \6yov i^Srtpoi k4' 
yoyrtSf ^ oStu fihv tLv S^irov 
rcdtrk \4yotfi€y ; 'ivv€X<^pci. 'AAA' 
Sra*' ^rjli4r€poSi l^rj, rhy rov 
irpdyfMros \oyoy A€7]7, r6r€ iLvri- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



mises is not only that drawn by Aristotle * that no Chap. 
false propositions, but also that no propositions of _ 
any kind are possible. The doctrine of Antisthenes 
was logically destructive of all knowledge and every 
kind of judgment. 

Not that the Cynics were themselves disposed to C. Them^y 
renounce knowledge in consequence. Four books %ood^and 
came from the pen of Antisthenes, respecting the ^^' 
diflFerence between knowledge and opinion.^ Indeed, 
the whole School prided itself in no small degree on 
having advanced beyond the deceptive sphere of 
opinions,* and being in full possession of truth. 

Xeyoifi^y Up ; ^ ofhto yc rh irapd- 
vav ohV tiv ficfivrifxhos eft; tow 
TrpAynaros oMrepos ijfiQv ; Kol 
Tovro (rvywixo\6y€i. 'AXA.' ipa, 
Urav iy&) \4y<o fi^u rh irpaytxa^ 
<rb 8c ov^h \iyeis rh icapAirw • b 
8^ M^ A.€7«r T9» K4yovri rem Uv 
oirrtKiyot; Plato probably had 
Antisthenes in his eye, although 
this line of argument had not 
originated with him. Conf. 
teller, 1. c. i. 905, and JDiog. ix. 
53: rby *Avri(rB4yovs \6yo» rhv 
irtip(&fiiPOV &,iro^€Ucv6fiv &s ovk 
ttrnv hvriXtytiVf oJnos (Prota- 
goras) itp&ros 8ictX6Krat fcarii 
^irt UKtkrwv iv EvBuHifi^ (286, 
c). Here, too, belongs the 
saying of Antisthenes in Stob. 
Flor. 82, 8, that contradiction 
ought never to be used, but 
only persuasion. A madman 
will not be brought to his 
senses by another's raving. 
Contradiction is madness; for 
he who contradicts, does what 
is in the nature of things impos- 
sible. Of this subject the lASw 
fl Tcpl rod &ini\4ytip treated. 

* See p. 296, 1, Prod in 
Crat. 37 : ^AvrurOtvns ll\€yey fi^ 
deTv kvriKiyuv ' iras 7^^, fp7\<ri, 
\6yos itXrfi€{ffi • 6 yh.p \4ywy r\ 
\4yfi ' 4 5i tI \iyuv rb by \4' 
y€i • 6 bh rb by \4ywv aKriOeiei. 
Conf. Plato, Crat. 429, D. 

* Ufpl b6^7is Kol iirtn'T'fifiriSt 
Diog. 17. Doubtless this trea- 
tise contained the explanation 
given p. 253, 1. 

* Dioa. 83 says of Monimus : 
otros fJLty ifAfipiB4(Traros iyivero, 
&(rr€ bS^ris fily Kartuf>poytiyf irpbs 
8* iiXiiBuay irapopfi^y. Menan^ 
der, Ibid, says of the same 
Cynic : rb yitp biro\7i<f>Bhy rv<poy 
ttyai iray f^ij, and Seast. Math, 
viii. 5 : M6yifws 6 ic6uv rv<poy 
ctx^y rk irdyra^ Hittp oXi](rii 4<rr\ 
ruv obK bvrw &s 6yrcoy. Conf. 
M. Awrel. irp. iavr. ii. 15 : bri 
Trav bw6Kii^is ' 8^Aa fi^v yiip rh 
irpbs rod kuvikov Mov(/uou \ty6~ 
fitya. On this ground the later 
Sceptics wished to reckon Mo- 
nimus one of themselves, but 
wrongly so. What he says has 
only reference to the worthless- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap. \ With them, however, knowledge is directed entirely 

\^ I to a practical end, that of making men virtuous, and 

(happy in being virtuous.^ Aa the highest object in 
lite the Cynics, herein agr eeing w ith all other moral 
philosophers, regarded^^ ^ppiness^ Happiness being 
in general distinguished from yii^ue, or, at least, not 
united to virtue, they regard the two as abso- 
lutely identical. Nothing is good but virtue, nothing 
an evil but vice ; what is neither the one nor the 
other is for man indifferent.* For each thing that 
only can be a good which belongs to it,* The only real 




ness of common opinion and 
what it considers a good. In 
Lncian v. Auct. 8, Diogenes 
calls himself a prophet of truth 
and freedom. 

> See p. 292. 

* Diog. ii. : aindpKi\ r^y ip€- 
r^v irpbs ehUaufjLoyiay, so that 
happiness is the end, and 
virtue the means. Stob. Eel. 
103, 20, 21. 

» Diog. vi. 104 : ipttrKfi «' 
a&rois Koi r4\os cTvat rh icar' 
itprr^y fi" &* *ApTi<rB4vrjs <pria\y iy 
r^ 'HpoKKei, bfioUos rots trrwiKoh. 
Ibid, 105 : tA 9h fitra^b kpenji 
KoL Kojcias iiSidtJHtpa Keyovtrty 
Sfiolws ^Apiffruyi r^ Xiq», Duh- 
eles, in Diog. vi. 12 says of An- 
tisthenes : rayaBh, koAA t^ Kouch 
aXffxP^. Epiph. Exp. Fid. 1089, 
C : ibpnutr^ [Diogenes] rh kyaJBhy 
olarhy rohtuov iravri ffoip^ cTvot, 
r& 8* &AA.a ir((rra oMv ^ ^Kvaplas 
twdpx«t>f. Whether the epi- 
gram of Athen. in Diog. vi. 14, 
refers to the Cynics or the 
Stoics is not quite clear. 

''A ffroiKwy fi^Boty ctS^/ioycs, 2 

H^y^ara rats Upais iyBdfityoi 
<r«\i(ny ' 
riiy iiprriiy \^vxas ityoBhy fi6yoy' 
&i€ 'y&p aySp&y 
lioiya ic(U fiuyrky pixrofTo koX 

According to Diogenes it would 
appear as though the Stoic 
doctrine that virtue is the only 
good were therein attributed 
to the Cynics. 

^ This maxim follows from 
Diog, 12, who states as the 
teadiing of Antisthenes : r& 
troyjipk y6fii{€ ir&yra {cyucit. 
Compare Plato, Symp. 205, B. : 
oh yap rh laur^v, olfjuu Ikootoc 
iiarvd(oyTcUf cl /i^ cf ris rh fi^y 
hryaBhy oiK€ioy KaXo7 Koi iavrov^ rh 
8^ KaKhy iL?sX6rptoy. In the 
Charm. 163, C. Critias says, 
only the useful and good is 
olxtioy. Although Antisthenes 
is not here mentioned by name, 
yet the passage in Diogenes 
makes it probable that the 
antithesis of hyoBhy and oIkuov 
belongs to him, even if he was 
not the first to introduce it. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



thing which belongs to man is mind.^ Everything 
else is a matter of chance. Only in his mental and 
moral powers is he independent. Intelligence and 
virtue constitute the only armour from which all the 
attacks of fortune recoil ;^ that man only is free who 
is the servant of no external ties and no desires for 
things without.* 

Thus man requires nothing to make him happy 
but virtue.* All else he may learn to despise, in 
order to content himself with virtue alone.* For 


* Compare p. 293, 6; Xen. 
Symp. 4, 34, puts words to the 
same effect in the month of 
Antisthenes: voidiiu, 2 AvSpcf, 
tohs Mp<&wovs oifK iu r^ otK^ 
rhy TrXotroy koI r^v irevlay lx«*»'. 
AXA* iv reus ^vx<aus ' this is then 
farther expanded ; and Epictet* 
Diss. iii. 24, 68, makes Diogenes 
say of Antisthenes: ^ZiZa^i fit 
rik ifth icol tA odt i/jJi' Krriffis 
oirK i/ifi • <rvyyttf€ts, olittiot, <f>i\oiy 
<^/iriy iTvrfiOeiSy riiroij Ziarpifiij\^ 
xdyra ravra irt aWSrpia. ffhp 
otv t£; xP^^*"^ ^vroffwv. raiJ- 
njv I8ci{^ iMi 8ti iutdoKxnoy %x^i 
kyayAyKoaroVf k.t.K We have, 
however, certainly not got the 
very words of Diogenes or 

• Diog. 12 (teaching of An- 
tisthenes) : kyaipaiprrov twKov 
ipcrfi . . . rtlxos aar^aXitr'raroy 
^p6priaiy* fiiirt 7&p Hon-afftty 
fi'hrt xpoil^offBou. The same is 
a little differently expressed 
by JElpiph, Exp. Fid.' 1089, C. 
3ioff. 63 says of Diogenes : 
ipvnfiBth ri alnf irtpiyiyoycy ix 
^iKoco^toifHi^' tl Kid fiTiBtv H^KOy 
rh yovy irp^s irduray ritx^v irapf 
o-KffWdoi — and 106 : ip4irKu «b* 

rots rixTf fiiiS^y hcirp4ireiy. Stoh, 
Ekl. ii. 348 : Atoy4yns 1^ 6p§y 
r^y T^x'J*' ii^opwray abr^ Koi \4' 
yowray * roirroy S* ou Svyafuu 
fia\4€iy iciya \v<r<nirrfpa. (The 
same verse is applied by Damd, 
Schol. in Arist. 23, to Antis- 
thenes.) Conf. Stob. FloriL 
108, 71. 

» This is what Diogenes 
says of himself in I^nct, 
Diss. iii. 24, 67 : i^ o5 n* 'Ay- 
rurOdyris ii\fv04pu(rtVj oIk4ti iSo^ 
XetHTOL, and he also asserts in 
IHoff, 71 that he led the life of 
a Hercules, uri^hy iKofOtpias 
irpoKpivwy. Crates in Clem, 
Strom, ii. 413, A. {Theod, Cur. 
Gr. Aff. xii. 49, p. 172) praises 
the Cynics: 

yfiov^ h»tp9iKot4ilti hJ^oxiXwrm 
Koi Aicafiirroi 

kOdyaroy fiaai\flay iKti^tpiatf 
T* dnyar&ffiy, 

and he exhorts his Hipparchia 
r&yHf Kpdrti ^XVf ^Btt irya\- 

ofiff ^h xp^f<^^ hov\ovyL4yri 

oUB* ^ 4pi&T»y 0fi^iir6Owy. 

* See note 2. 

* See Dioff. 105: iip4ffKu i' 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





what is wealth without virtue ? A prey for flatterers 
and venal menials, a temptation for avarice, this root 
of all evil, a fountain of untold crimes and deeds of 
shame, a possession for ants and dung-beetles, a thing 
bringing neither glory nor enjoyment.^ Indeed what 
else can wealth be, if it be true that wealth and virtue 
can never dwell together,^ the Cyme's beggar-life 
being the only straight way to wisdom ? ' What are 
honour and shame ? The talk of fools, about which 
no child of reason will trouble himself? For in truth 
facts are the very opposite of what we think. Honour 
amongst men is an evil. To be despised by them is 
a good, since it keeps us back from vain attempts. 
Glory only falls to his lot, who seeks it not.* What 

cdnois KoL KiT&s fiiovp^ ttKoWov 
K(U Hd^ris icai evyevtias Korauppo- 
vovcri. Diog, 24. IJpict. Diss, 
i. 24, 6. 

» Antisth. in Stoh. Floril. i. 
30; 10, 42; Xen, Sym. 4, 35; 
Diog. in Diog, 47; 60; 60; 
Galen, Exhort, c. 7, i. 10, K. 
Metrocles in Biog. 96 ; Crates 
in Stoh. 97, 27; 15, 10; the 
same in Julian, Or. vi. 199, D. 

« Stoh, Floril. 93, 36 : l^ioyi- 
vns iXcyc, /ti^TC iv ir6\€i vKovfflc^ 
fii}r€ iy oIkU^ aperhv olK€tv ^iyor 
aBcu, Crates therefore disposed 
of his property, and is said to 
have settled that it should 
only he restored to his children 
when they ceased to be philo- 
sophers (^JMoff. 88, on the autho- 
rity of Demetrius Magnes). 
Unfortunately, however, Crates 
can at that time have neither 
had a wife nor children. 

» JHog. 104; Diog. in Stoh. 
Floril. 95, 11 ; 19. SeeLucian 

V. Auct. 11 ; Crates in JSpiph. 
Exp. Fid. 1089, C. : iKtveepias 

* Epicft. Diss. i. 24, 6 : (A«o- 
7€Mjs) A.e7€i, Srt eiSo^io ( Winck- 
elmann, p. 47, suggests iSo^to, 
which certainly might be ex- 
pected from what preceded) 
y^6po5 ^atl fiaiyofi^pwy kvBpdncav. 
Biog, 11 says of Antisth.: t^v 
t' k^o^iav ayadhy K(d Tiaoy ry 
ir6y<^f and 72: tvyey^las 8i Koi 
HS^as Ka\ rii roiavra irdyra Ste- 
iroufe (Diogenes), wpoKoafiiifMra 
Koucias thai Xiytov. In 41 he 
speaks of h6^f\s i^avBiiixara. In 
92 : ^Xeye l\ (Crates) /tcxft tou- 
8ov 7ii7v ipiKo<ro<puVy fi^xpi tiy 
Sd^cDtriv ol arparriyol cXycu oyi|- 
xdrai. Compare also 93. BoafO- 
pater in Aphthon. c. 2, Rhet. 
Gr. i. 192, says that Diogenes, 
in answer to the question. How 
is honour to be gained? re- 
plied *By not troubling your- 
self at all about honour.' 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



is death ? Clearly not an evil. For only what is bad * 
is an evil : and death we do not experience to be an 
evil, since we have no further experience when we are 
dead.* All these things are then only empty fancies,^ 
nothing more. Wisdom consists in holding one's 
thoughts free from them.* The most worthless and 
the most harmful thing is — what men most covet — 
pleasure. Pleasure the Cynics not only deny to be 
a good,* but they declare it to be the greatest evil ; 
and a saying is preserved of Antisthenes, that he 
would rather be mad than pleased.* Where the desire 
of pleasure becomes unbridled passion, as in love, 


' Epiot. 1. c, : X^7«, (hi 6 Bdya- 
ros ovK lcrT€ Kcucby^ obBh ykp oi- 
(rxp6y. See p. 302, 3. 

* Diogenes in I>ioq, 68. 
Conf. Oic, Tusc. i. 43, 104. 
Evidently the Cynic here is 
not thinking of immortality, 
nor does it follow from the re- 
mark of Antisthenes on H. xxiii. 
16 (Schol. Venet. in JVinckel- 
mann, p. 28) to the effect that 
the soids have the same forms 
as their bodies. 

' Or as the Cynics techni- 
cally call it, mere smoke, 
Twpos, See Miog, 2Qy 83, 86, 
and p. 301, 3. 

* Clemem, Strom, ii. 417, B. 
(^Theod. Cur, Gr. Aff. xi. 8, p. 
152) :' Avri<rB4p7is fi^y riiv Atv- 
ipiay {t4\os krd^yti). 

» As Crates — ^probably the 
Cynic — proves in Teles, in Stoh, 
Floril. 98, 72 by the considera- 
tion, that the human life from 
beginning to end brings far 
more ni^appiness than plea- 
eure; if therefore the 'ir\€oy6- 

(oviTau rjBoyal were the measure 
of happiness, a happy man 
could not be found. 

• JXog, vi. 3 : ^\€y4 re ffvyf- 
X^s ' fiay fitly fioKKov ff ri<rOflriy, 
lb, ix. 101. Conf. Sext, Math, 
xi. 741: [ii riltoy^ 8o|<if«Tai] 
Ktucbv {nr* ^AvriffBhovs, The same 
inOell, ix. 5, 3; Clemem, Stro- 
mat. ii. 412, D.; Em, Pr. Ev. 
XV. 13, 7 {Theod. Cur. Gr. Aff. 
xii. 47, p. 172). Conf. Diog, vi. 
8, 14, and p. 258, 4. Plato is 
no doubt referring to this 
Cynical dictum, Phileb. 44, C. : 
KUlv fit^KTriKSray r^y t^j riiovTJs 
i^afuy Koi y^yofiiKSrwy oitihy 
iytfs, &(rT€ Kol abrh rovro abr^s 
rh ivayoyyhy ytyfrrevfut olx V^ov^v 
e?va«, and Arist. Eth. x. 1, 1172, 
a, 27 : ol fih yhp rh.yaBhy yfiov^y 
Kfyovtriy^ oi 8* 4^ iyayrias KOfAi^ 
<l>av\oy, lb, vii. 12, 1152, b, 8 : 
roh fi^y oily 8oKci ovZ^fda ii^oy^ 
flyai hyaBhy olh€ koB* abrh oihc 
Karh ovfifiefiriKSs * ob yhp <7veu 
rabrhy iiyaBhy koI ri9oy^y. Com- 
pare p. 296. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





where man lowers himself to be the slave of his de- 
sires, there no means can be too violent to eradicate 
it,^ Conversely, what most men fear, labour and 
toil, are good, because they only bring man to that 
state, in which he can be independent.^ Hercules ' 
is therefore the patron-saint and pattenT for ^he 
Cynic,* no one else having fought his way through so 
arduous and toilsome a life for the good of mankind, 
with so much courage and vigour. In support of this 
view, Antisthenes appears to have argued that plea- 
sure is nothing but the pause after pain.* On this 

» Clemens, 1. c. 406, C. : ^^ 
Si iLitoB4xofiai rhp *Awt(r6^ytjv, 

icararolc^o-ou/it, tl xdfioifit • Jrt 

yvifotieas hiifpBupcv. t6v re %pvra 

KMtiw ^a\ ifk^MrtWf flj <TTOVS 

6vr€S ol KaK9^fiop€S Sthp r^p 
p6ffop KoXovffip. Crates in Diog, 
vi. 86 {Clemens, Strom, ii. 
412, D. ; Theod. 1. c. xii. 49 ; 
Juliany Or. vi. 198, B.) : 

%p(ara iraiti \ifJi6Sf e2 8i /t^, 
XP^Pos • 

On the same subject compare 
also Diog, vi. 38 ; 61 ; 67 ; Stob, 
Floril. 64, 1; 6, 2; 18, 27; 
Diog. 66: robs fi^p oiK4ras 1^ 
rois HtffwSrous. robs 8i ^aOhovs 
ra7s 4iriBvfi(cus SovAc^civ. See p. 
303, 3. 

* IHog, vi. 2, says of Anti- 
sthenes : K<d tkt 6 ttSpos dyaBhp 
Cvpiimifft tih rod fieydKov 'Hpa- 
ie\4ous Kol roS K6pov, Diogenes 
says in Exc. e Floril. Jo. 
Bamasc. ii. 13, 87 (Stoh. Floril. 
ed. Mein. iv. 200) that boys, 

if they are to come to any 
good, ought to be educated by 
abstemiousness, as early as they 
are susceptible of culture. 

* Who had also a temple 
near Cynosarges. 

* Antisthenes speaks of two 
Herculeses, Diog. 2, 18. Winc- 
kelmann, p. 16. Diogenes says 
of himself in Diog, 71 : r^y 
ct^hp xopoMT^pB fov filov 8ic{<i- 
yup Upvcp Koi *}ipcuc\rj5f fiijih 
iKtvB^pias irpoKplpMP, Therefore 
Ens, Pr. Ev. XV. 13, 7, calls 
Antisthenes 'HpoicXtwruc^s ris 
av^p rb <f>p6pnfia ; and in Ducian, 
V. Auct. 8, Diogenes replies to 
the query as to whom he was 
imitating : rhp *HpaK\4ay at the 
same time showing his stick 
for a club, and his philosopher's 
cloak for a lion's skin, with 
the addition, which probably 
comes from a Cynic writing: 
crrparc^ofiflu 8i &nrcp iKciPos M 
11^ iliopks . . . 4KKa$apeu rhp 
fiiop iroocupo6n€poSf . . . ^A.cv0c- 
ptorfis €ifu r&p difOptiwotp K(d icerphs 
T&p TToB&p, See Dens. Cyn. 13^ 
JuUariy Or. vi. 187, C. 

» Plato, Phileb. 44, B. (Conf. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



-supposition it will appear absurd to pursue pleasure ; 
which can only be attained by having previously ex- 
perienced a corresponding amount of pain. 

From this rigid development of their principles 
to which Antisthenes had been brought, partly by 
his own natural temperament,^ partly from regard to 



51, A. ; Bep. ix. 583, B.) speaks 
of people, as yuika dtwohs Keyo- 
^Ikivovs rk irepi ^{xriVf ot rowapd' 
irav ri^oifhs ot <f>ounf cTvai, for 
they maintain \vk&p ra^as 
ttpcu vdiTas A^oi^try^s &f vvy ol 
^epl ^fl\rifioif riHovhi iiroyofid(ov- 
'<riv. This passage refers with- 
out doubt to Antisthenes. 
Wendt (Phil. Cyren. 17, 1) 
.applies it to philosophers who 
•declare freedom from pain to 
be the highest good. Ch-ote, 
Plato, ii. 609, thinks of the 
Pyth^oreans, from whom he 
imagines Speusippus derived 
his theory of pleasure. Only 
no philosophers of Plato's age 
.are known to us who made 
freedom from pain the highest 
.good. As to the Pythagoreans, 
we know of their asceticism, 
but no ethical theory of theirs 
is known to us thoroughly 
rejecting pleasure. On the 
other haid we know that Anti- 
sthenes did reject pleasure. 
The probability is, therefore, 
that Plato in writing this pas- 
.sage had Antisthenes in his 
eye. That the expression 
9€tyo\ rh. vtpl (piitriv is no obstacle 
to this -fiew, has been already 
indicated, p. 294, 4 ; the ex- 
pression not referring to phy- 
jsical research, but to the prac- 
tical enquiry as to what is con- 
formable to nature, to which 
.Antisthenes wanted to go back 

without including pleasure 
thereunder. If the further 
objection is raised, that the 
opponents of pleasure here 
referred to, hate (according to 
Phil. 46, A) rks ray iL<rx7ifi6ywp 
^$oy&s, whereas the Cynics al- 
l6wed no difference between 
things seemly and unseemly, 
this rests on a misapprehen- 
sion; for the ri9oy(d rwy kffxn- 
n6v(ay are, as the context 
shows, condemned by the op- 
ponents of pleasure, not because 
of their unseemliness, but be- 
cause they are always combined 
with xinhappiness. Nor can we 
assert tliat Plato would not 
have spoken of Antisthenes 
with so much consideration as 
he here does (44, C). If he 
at one time of life replied to 
his sallies with appropriate 
severity (see p. 292, 2 ; 299, 3), 
it does not follow that after the 
lapse of years, and in respect 
of a question on which their 
views more nearly approxi- 
mated, he could not express 
himself more gently and ap- 
preciatingly. Yet even here 
he will not allow to him the 
properly scientific capacity, the 

* Plato, 1. c. continues : roi- 
TOis oZy rjjxas vSrepa wtlBeaBai 
ffvfifiov\€{t€iSj fj ir&Sy & 'id^Kpares ; 
— Ot^ic, &\\* &<nr€p fjutmsffi vpoff- 
XP^<r0at rivt, fjLavTcv3p.4yots oi 

X 2 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, it as a means of education,^ the Cynics, however, so 
-__ir far departed, as to recognise a certain kind of pleasure 
to be legitimate. Pleasure which is not followed by 
remorse,^ or more accurately, pleasure resulting from 
labour and effort,^ is said to have been called a good, 
even by Antisthenes. In Stobseus,* Diogenes recom- 
mends justice as the most useful and at the same time- 
as the most pleasant thing, because it alone aCFords 
peace of mind, protects from trouble and sickness, 
and even secures bodily enjoyments. He also asserts,** 
that happiness consists in that true joy which can 
only be obtained by an imrufiBed cheerfulness of mind^ 
Moreover, the Cynics when wishing to set forth the 
advantages of their philosophy, did not fail to follow^ 
in the steps of Socrates, by asserting that life with 
them was far more pleasant and independent than 
with other men, that their abstemiousness gave the- 
right flavour to. enjoyment, and that mental delights- 

T€xvj;, oAAii Tiyi 8i/(rxcpc^? <^w- - At/ten. xii. 518, a: 'Arrt- 

a€695 ouK ayewovSf \lay, K.r.\. a64vrjs Se rijy ti^ovtiv ayoBov elvav 

" See p. 306, 6. (fxiaKcoy, irpo(r40riK€ r^v dfieraupi- 

* Arigt» Eth. x. 1 : Some K-nrov, but we require to know 

hold pleasure to be altogether the context in which Antis- 

a mistake : ol fikv Xffas TrtTceia" thenes uttered this. 
fihoi oStco K<d ix^iVj oi Se oiSfievoi ^ Antisth. in Stob, Flor. 29^ 

0€\rloy tJyai vphs rhy filoy iifiSov 65 : Tfiovks rks fierh. robs irSyov^ 

airoipalyeiy rijy rj^oyiiy Twy <f>a{h- Hiaicrdov, dW* ow^l rckj vph rSiv 

Xtoy, Koi ct lu^ iffriy * fteireiy ykp irSyay. 

robs vo}i\ohs vphs abr^y Kcd Ihv- * Floril. 9, 49 ; 24, 14, where 

\€V€iy rats ^$ova7r, 5<6 Buy «ts probably the Cynic Diogenes- 

Tobyayrloy Aytiy • i\0€7y yhp &y is alluded to. It is, however, a 

oZrtos iv\ rhfx4<roy, Diog, vi. 35 : question whether the words- 

fUfiuffBai^ ?\€7e (Atoydyris) robs are taken from a genuine 

XopoBdiaffKd\ov5 ' Kal yhp iKfivovs writing of his. 
Mp r6voy iyZiB6yati^yeKa rod robs * XHd, 103, 20; 21. 
Xotwobs &>paff0(u rov vpoff^Koyros 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



afforded a fax higher pleasure than sensual ones.* 
Still all that this language proves is, that their theory 
was imperfectly developed, and that their mode of 
•expression was inaccurate, their meaning being that 
pleasure as such ought in no case to be an end,^ and 
that when it is anything more than a natural conse- 


* Thus in Xeti. Symp. 4, 34, 
where the description appears 
on the whole to be true, Anti- 
£thenes demonstrates that in 
his poverty he was the happiest 
of men. Food, drink, and 
sleep he enjoyed ; better 
clothes he did not need ; and 
from aU these things he had 
more enjoyment than he liked ; 
-SO little did he need that he 
was never embarrassed to think 
how he should find support ; he 
had plenty of leisure to asso- 
ciate with Socrates, and if he 
wanted a pleasant day, there 
was no need to purchase the 
requisite materials in the mar- 
ket, but he had them ready in 
the soul. Diogenes in Biog. 
71, speaks in a similar strain 
((not to mention IH4) Chryg, Qr. 
•vi. 12 ; 33) ; he who has learned 
to despise pleasure, finds there- 
in his highest pleasure ; and in 
Plut, De Exil. 12, p. 605, he 
<5ongratulates himself on not 
having, like Aristotle, to wait 
for Philip for breakfast; or 
like Callisthenes for Alexander 
(^IHoff. 45) : to the virtuous man 
according to Diogenes (Plut, 
Tranq. An. 20, p. 477) every day 
is a festival. In like manner 
Pint. Tranquil. An. 4, says that 
Orates passed his life in jesting 
and joking, like one perpetual 
festival; and Metrocles (in 

Plutarch, An. Vitios. ad Infelic. 
3, p. 499), like Diogenes (in 
LuciaUy V. Auct. 9), blesses him- 
self for being happier than 
the Persian king. See Biog, 
44, 78. 

2 As Hitter, ii. 121, has re- 
marked, the difference between 
the teaching of Antisthenes 
and that of Aristippus might 
be thus expressed: Aristippus 
considered the result of the 
emotion of the soul to be the 
good ; Antisthenes considered 
the emotion itself to be the 
end, and the value of the 
action to consist in the doing 
of it. Ritter, however, asks 
with justice whether Anti- 
sthenes ever went back so far 
as this, since it is never dis- 
tinctly imputed to him. And 
in the same way it will be 
found that Aristippus never 
regarded pleasure as a state of 
rest, but as a state of motion 
for the soul. The contrary is 
not established by what Mer^ 
mcmn, Ges. Abh. 237, f. al- 
leges. Hermann proves, it is 
true, that Antisthenes con- 
sidered the good to be virtu- 
ous activity, and that Aristip- 
pus took it to be pleasure, but 
he does not prove that Anti- 
sthenes and Aristippus spoke 
in explicit terms of the rest 
and the motion of the soul. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, quence of action and of satisfying essential wants, it 
is a thing to be avoided. 

From these considerations followed the conclusion,., 
that everything else excepting virtue and vice is in- 
diflFerent for us, and that we in turn ought to be 
indifiFerent thereto. Only those who soar above 
poverty and wealth, shame and honour, ease and 
fetigue, life and death, and who are prepared to 
submit to any work and state in life, who fear no- 
one, troubling themselves about nothing — only such 
as these ofiFer no exposed places to fortune, and can 
therefore be free and happy.* 
(1) Virtue. As yet, here are only the negative conditions of 
happiness. What is the positive side corresponding^ 
thereto ? Virtue alone bringing happiness, and the 
goods of the soul being alone worth possessing, in 
what does virtue consist? Virtue, replies Antis- 
thenes, herein following Socrates and Euclid, consists 
in wisdom or prudence;^ and Eeason is the only 

* Diog. in Stoh, Floril. 86, sophy was eipiuav re x<'"'*l *^^ 

19 (89, 4), says the noblest rh fxt\^tvhs fi4\€iy. Antis. in 

men are ot Karouppovovvrts ir\oiJ- Stob. Floril. 8, 14 : 8<ms 8e 

rov S6^Tis Ti^ovrjs C^ijSy r&v Se Irdpovs BtBoiKe dovXos &)v \4\r)0€v 

iuavrlwp vvepdveo uktcs, irfvlas tavrSv. Diogenes in Dioff. 75 : 

i^o^ias irSvov davdrou. IHog, ^oiiKoM rb <pofi€iff6at. See pp.. 

29 says of the same : ^irpVei 302, 2 ; 303, 2 and 3 j 305, 4. 

robs fX€\\omas yaiieiv koX fi^ * This follows from Dioff^ 

7afi€7v, KOi robs jxdWovras koto- 13 : reixos &a-<pa\4<rrarov <pp6- 

irXciv Koi fiii KaTcarKtiVy kolL robs vritriv . . . r^ixv KaraffK€vaffr4oy 

fi4Wovra$ iroKirtiitaOau koX fx^ iv rots abrStv kvaXdarois Koyi- 

vo\iTe{/€(rdcu, kolL robs vauBorpo- ofiotsy if we connect with it hi& 

^civ KoiX fi^ iraidorpoiptiyt Koti robs maxims about the oneness and 

irapaffK€va(oix4vovs crvfifiiovv roh the teachableness of virtue^. 

BvvJurrais koI fi^ irpoinSyras. and his doctrine of the wise 

Crates, iHd. 86, says that man. 
what he had gained by philo- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



thing which gives a vahie to life.^ Hence, as his Chap. 

teacher had done before him, he concludes that virtue '_ 

is one and indivisible,^ that the same moral problem 
is presented to every class of men,* and tl^t virtue 
is the result of teaching.* He further maintains that 
virtue is an inalienable possession ; for what is once 
known can never be forgotten.^ He thus bridges 
over a gulf® in the teaching of Socrates by a system 
in which Sophistical views ^ contributed no less than 
practical interests to make virtue in itself indepen- 
dent of everything external.® Wherein, however. 

* Compare the saying attri- 
buted to Antisthenes in Plut, 
Sto. Kep. 14, 7, p. 1040, and to 
Diogenes in Biog. 24 : ets rhv 
fiiov irap€aK€vd(€<rdai dciv \6yov ^ 
Bp6xov. Also Dioff. 3. 

2 Schol. Lips, on H. 0. 123 
( Winckelmannf p. 28) : *AvTt- 
ff9ivi\5 <f>ri(r\v, &s et n irpdrrti 6 
ffoiphs Karh rraaavlapcr^p ivcpyu. 

* IHoff. 12 according to Dio- 
des : ikv^phs Kal ywaiKhs ri avrii 

* IHoff. 10 : JtJJoKT^v hr€^€lKifv€ 
{^AjnurOtvris) tt^v hptriiv. 105 : 
iip4<TK€i 8' ahro7s Koi r^v dper^v 
StSoiCT^v cTvat, KaS^ <l>riff\v 'Avri- 
ffB4vr\s iv r^ 'HpoucXc?, Kal ava- 
fr6fi\rirov ^wdpx^iv* Without 
doubt the reference in Isoor, 
Hel. i. 1 is also to Antisthenes. 
iBocrates quotes the passages 
just given, with the sentence 
of Antisthenes which was dis- 
cussed p. 300, 2, added: Kara- 
yeyripdKourip ol fihv ob ^dffKovns 
oUv t' *Tveu }\/€v5ri \4ytiv oii8' 
itim\€y€iv, . . » ol Hh 8i€|iovT6s 
&s diyhpia Koil <To<l>la Kal BiKcuoa^vri 
Tavr6y ivrt' KotX <f>i<r€i yxv ovblv 

Koff artdtnav iffriv &Woi Be 
ircpl Tcbs fpi^as Ziarpi^ovai k.t.A. 
The expression ol ixkv, . . . ol 
8e does not prove that the first 
of these statements belongs to 
a different school from that 
to which the second belongs. 

® Diog. 12 : avcupalpfTov ^vKoy 
fi hperii, Xen. Mem. i. 2, 19 : 
Xfftas oZv iiiroiev Uv iroAXoi rSov 
(poffKSyrav <pi\o(ro<f>ui/, Bri oifK 
&t/ irore 6 BlKaios &Bikos y^poiro, 
o&8e 6 <T(a<pp(ov {ffipiar^s, ovB^ HWo 
ob^hvy &v fidBrjffls iariVf 6 fiaS^v 
cLPeviffriifKov &v irore ycpoiro. 

® The maxim that prudence 
is insuperable. See p. 142, 3. 

^ The maxim that you cannot 
forget what you know is only 
the converse; of the Sophistic 
maxim that you cannot learn 
what you do not know. 

" It is only independent of 
external circumstances, when 
it cannot be lost : for since the 
wise and virtuous man will 
never, as long as he continues 
wise and virtuous, forego his 
wisdom and virtue, and since, 
according to the teaching of 
Socrates, no one intentionally 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 






true prudence consisted the Cynics could not say 
more precisely. If it were described as knowledge 
concerning the good,^ this, as Plato justly observed,* 
was simply a tautology. If, on the contrary, it were 
said to consist in unlearning what is bad,* neither 
does this negative expression lead a -single step 
further. So much only is clear, that the prudence of 
Antisthenes and his School invariably coincides with 
a right state of will, of firmness, of self-control and 
of uprightness,* thus bringing us back to the 
Socratic doctrine of the oneness of virtue and know- 
A- ledge. / Hence by learning virtue, they understood 
■> moral exercise rather than intellectual research.^ 
They would not have recognised the Platonic and 
Aristotelian distinction between a conventional and 
a philosophical, an ethical and an intellectual virtue ; 

1^9}, rh Ktach. &iro/ia0civ. The 
same is found in Exc. e Floril. 
Joan. Damasc. ii. 13, 34 {Stoh, 
Floril. ed. Mein. iv. 193). 

* Compare pp. 292, 1 ; 303, 2 
and 3. 

* Here it may suffice to call 
to mind what has been said p. 
292, 1, and what Diogenes in 
Diog. 70 says : hirr^v 5' %\^ev 
etvai T^v &<ricri<riv, rijy fxcv ^wx*" 
ic^v, r^y Bh a-ufAoriicfiy' ralmiv 
. . . (the text here appears 
faulty) Koff %v iv yvfivoffitf ffvv^- 
X^ts [<rvv€X€*] ? yiv6fi€vai [cu] 
<f>avraalai tiiXvaicuf xphs ra r^s 
kperris ^pya iraf)6Xo>^rai' thai 5' 
oTe\^ T^v kripav x^P^^ *"?* crepos 
. . • vaperlBero th r€Kfi4ipia rod 
pq,Bi(os ktrb rrjs yvfivao'loLs ip r^ 
&perf KaTaylv€<rdai (to be at 
home in); for in every art prac-. 
tice makes perfect; 71: oMvye 
IJL^v l\€7€ rh vapdirtw iv ry p>i^ 

does wrong, it follows that 
knowledge can only be taken 
away by a cause foreign to the 
will of the individual. 

> PlatOy Rep. vi. 505, B. : 
kKKh fi^y r6^€ ye olaBa^ tri ro7s 
fikv iroXXots v^ovii hoKci tlpcu rh 
iryaJdhVf ro7s 8^ KOfir^oripois <f>p6vri- 
(Tis , , . , Koi tri yt, £ ^^A.e, ot 
rovro rjyo6iJ.€VOi ovk I^x^^^^ 8€l|ai 
T^Tis <l>p6vri<nsj dXX' kpayK^dovrai 
TeXeuTwrres t^p tov hya/dov 
ipdpcu. If the Cjoiics are not 
here exclusively meant, the 
passage at any rate refers to 

M. c. 

• Diog, 8, according to Pha- 
nias : (^Apri(T94pris) iptorriBfls vnh 
TOV » . . ri roiwp KaXhs KkyaBhs 
%ffoirOy i^i]' €i rh. Kouch. & Ix**^ 
8rt <p€vKrd iffri ixdiBois vctph rS>p 
eiZ6r»p. Ibid. 7: iparriOels ri 
rwp /xaOrifidrwp i,paryKai6rarov, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


and in answer to Meno's ^ question, whether virtue Chap. 

was produced by exercise or instruction, they would * 

have replied, that practice was the best instruction. 

He who has attained to virtue by the help of the (2) Wis- 
Cjmic teaching, is a wise man. Everyone else is -p^^ 
lacking in wisdom. To tell the advantages of the 
one, and the misery of the other, no words are too 
strong for the Cynics. The wise man never suffers 
want, for all things are his. He is at home every- 
where, and can accommodate himself to any circum- 
stances. Faultless and love-inspiring, fortune cannot 
touch him.^ An image of the divinity, he lives with 
the Grods. His whole life is a festival, and the Grods, 
i^hose friend he is, bestow on him everything.^ The 
reverse is the case with the great bulk of mankind. 
Most of them are mentally crippled, slaves of fancy, 
severed only by a finger's breadth from madness. 
To find a real man, you must look for him with a 
lantern in broad daylight. Misery and stupidity are 

X^P^s affKri(T€o»s KaropQovffOax^ 8v- &7a0bs, ^ kK6vres ^ JSmovt^s oht\v 

varr^v 8i rabrTiv trav iKviKri<Tat. Keyovffiv, Yet Diogenes (in 

* PlatOy Meno, init. Biog, 89) allows that no one is 

* Biog, 11 : ahrdpicn t' ilvai perfectly free from faults. 

rbv <ro^6v " xdvra yap ahrov * Diogenes, in Diog. 61 : rohs 

*€lvcu ra rSov ^SlWoov, Ibid, 12 ayaBohs IkvZpas B^av tlxSvas thai, 

(according to Diodes) : ry Ibid. 37, 72 : twv fiewv iffri 

ffo^^ ^4vov obdhv ov8* Hiropop, rrtUna' ^IXoi 5e ol cro^o2 ro7s 

^Upaxrros 6 ii,yci0s. Ibid, 105 : Beois • Koivh Se rh ray ^(Xwi/. 

'iL^itpcurrdv re rhv (ro<f>hv Koi hva- Trdvr* &pa iffrl rSav fftx^Sav, 

ifidprrirov KoX tpiXoy r^ dfioloty r^xv Diog. in Plut, Tran. An. 20 : 

re firiBhy ivirpivtiy. See p. 303, dy^p dyaOhs ob vwrav rnxeph^ 

.2. The passage in. Arigt, Eth. kopr^v rrYurou; Exc. e Floril. 

N. vii. 14, 1053, b, 19, probably Joan. Damasc. ii. 13, 76 ; 'Ai^Ti- 

.also refers to the Cynics : ol Bh cBivfjs ipoorriBcls ^6 riyos rl 5i- 

rbv rpo\i(6pL^vov Kcd rhv Zvarv- dd^€i rhv vlhv, ctvcy * el fiey Beois 

X^a<s fieydXois ircptir(irroi^a €V' /uiXAci ovfifiiovyj <l>i\6<ro^oyf ex Bk 

^aifioya (jtdaKoyres cTfai, ihy ^ dyBptbvois^ piiropa. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





D. The 
effects of 

the universal fate of mortals,^ Accordingly all man- 
kind are divided into two classes. Innumerable fools 
stand opposite to a small number of wise men. 
Only a very few are happy through prudence and 
virtue. All the rest live in misfortune and foUy^ 
only the fewest of all being aware of their deplorable 

Following out these principles, the Cynics con- 
ceived it to be their special mission to set an example 
themselves of strict morality, of abstemiousness, of 
the independence of the wise man, and also to exercise 
a benej&cial and strengthening influence on others. 
To this mission they devoted themselves with extra- 
ordinaiy self-denial, not, however, without falling 
into such extravagances and absurdities, such offensive 
coarseness, utter shamelessness, overbearing self-con- 
ceit, and empty boasting, that it is hard to say 
whether their strength of mind rather calls for ad- 
miration, or their eccentricities for ridicule; and 

* Diogi. 33 : iLyairftpous IsKeye 
(£kioy4prjs) oh rohf Kaxjtobs koX 
rv^XohSf i^ rovs fii} ^x^^^^^ 
iHipav. Ibid. 35: robs vXti- 
trrovs ^\eye vaph BdicruXov fiaivt- 
ffSat, Compare what has been 
said of Socrates p. 121, 2, Ibid. 
47 : robs ^iiropas koI vdmas Tobs 
4vdo^o\oyouvTas rpKravBpdmovs d- 
TTCKikKu ami rov rpiaa6\lovs. 
Ibid, 71 : Instead of becoming 
happy by practice of virtue, 
men rrapdt r^v Hvoiav Kcucodaifio- 
yov(ri. Ibid, 33: irphs rhv 
eiir6vra ' IliBia vikQ AyBpas^ iyi) 
fihv olvj elirfv, HydpaSf (rb 8* di'- 
9pdvo^a, Ibid, 27: men he 

had found nowhere, but boys 
he had found in Lacedaemon» 
Ibid, 41 ; the story of Diogenes 
with his lantern. Ibid. 86;. 
verses of Crates on the stupi- 
dity of mankind. Compare 
also iStob, Floril. 4, 52. Dio- 
genes in Exc. e Floril. Joan.. 
Damasc, ii. 13, 75, says that 
the vilest thing upon earth is a 
man without culture. Either 
Diogenes or Philiscus asserts in 
Stob, Flor. 22, 41 (Conf. Diag., 
vi. 80) : 6 Tv<l>os &<nrep troifi^v ©& 
64K€i [robs iroAAoJrs] &y€i. Com- 
pare p. 292, 2. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

CYNIC Self-renunciation, 



whether they rather command esteem, or dislike, or Chap. 

commiseration. Previous enquiries, however, make 

it possible for us to refer these various peculiarities 
to one common source. 

The leading thought of Cynicism is the self-suffi- (l) Self- 
ciency of virtue.^ Blunt and onesided in their con- ^.^^^ 
ception of this principle, the Cynics were not content 
with a mere in/ward independence of the enjoyments 
and wants of life. Their aim, they thought, could 
only be reached by entirely renouncing all enjoyment, 
by limiting their wants to what is absolutely indis- 
pensable, by deadening their feelings to outward 
impressions, and by cultivating indiflference to all 
that is not in their own power. The Socratic inde- 
pendence of wants ^ became with them a renunciation 
of the world.^ Poor to begin with,* or renouncing 
their property voluntarily,* they lived as beggars.^ 

* See p. 302. guise, the staflE and scrip ; nor 

* According to Diog. vi. 105, is the truth of his account im- 
conf . I/ticia/nf Cyn. 12, Dio- pugned by Sosicrates, in saying 
genes repeated the language that Diodorus of Aspendus 
which we saw Socrates used, p. was the first to do so ; for this 
64, 3. To the same effect is statement is not very accurate, 
the story that Diogenes, at the both Antisthenes and Diogenes 
beginning of his Cynic career, being older than Diodorus. 
refused to look for a runaway Nevertheless, in IHog. 22, Dio- 
slave, because he could do genes is described with great 
without his slave as weU as probability as the originator 
the slave could do without of the full mendicant garb^ 
him. IHog, 55 ; iStob, Floril. 62, and he is also said to have been 
47. Ibid, 97, 31, p. 215 Mein. the first to gain his living by 

* See pp. 303; 310, 1. begging. Diog, 38; 46; 49; 

* Such as Antisthenes, Dio- Teles, in Stob. Flor. v. 67; 
genes, and Monimus. Hieron, adv. Jovin. ii. 207. 

* Such as Crates and Hip- His followers Crates (see the 
parchia. verses in Diog. 85 and 90) and 

* According to Diodes in Monimus (Diog. 82) adopted 
Diog. vi. 13, Antisthenes al- the same course. 
ready assumed the beggar's 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





Possessing no houses of their own, they passed the 
__ day in the streets, or in other public places; the 
nights they spent in porticoes, or wherever else 
chance might guide them.^ Furniture they did not 
need.^ A bed seemed superfluous.^ The simple 
Greek dress was by them made still simpler, and they* 
>^ were content with the tribon * of Socrates, the ordi- 
nary dress of the lower orders,* without any under- 

* Diogenes must have been 
the first to act thus. For An- 
tisthenes in Xen. Symp. 4, 38, 
stDl speaks of having a house, 
although its furniture was con- 
fined to the bare walls. Dio- 
genes, however, and the later 
Cynics lived as described. See 
Biog. 22; 38 ; 76 ; 105: TeUs, 
1. c. and in Stoh. Floril. 97, 31, 
p. 215 Mein, Hteron, Lucian, 
V. Auct. 9. Diogenes for a 
time took up his abode in a 
tub which stood in the en- 
trance-court of Metroon, at 
Athens, as had been done by 
homeless folk before. IHog. 
23 ; 43 ; 105 ; Sen. Ep. 90, 14. 
But it cannot have been, as 
Juvenal, xiv. 208, and Zucian, 
Consc. His. 3, represent it, that 
he spent his whole life there 
without any other home, even 
carrying his tub about with 
him, as a snail does its shell. 
Compare Steinha/rty 1. c. p. 302 • 
Oottling, Gres. Abh. 258, and 
Brucker's report of the discus- 
sions between Hermann and 
Kasaeus, Hist. Phil. i. 872. 
Equally fictitious is the roman- 
tic story that Crates and Hip- 
parchia lived in a tub. Simpl. 
in JSpi^, Enchir. p. 270. All 
that Musonius in Stob, Floril. 

67, 20, p. 4, Mein. says is that 
they spent day and night in 
the open porticoes. In south- 
em countries they even now 
often spend the night in a 

* The story that Diogenes 
threw away his cup, when he 
had seen a boy drinking with 
the hollow of his hand, is well 
known. Diog, 37 ; Plvt, Prof, 
in Virt. 8, p. 79; Seneca, Ep. 
90, 14 ; Hier. 1. c. • He is also 
reported to have trampled on 
Plato's costly carpets with the 
words, irarw rhv UXdrwvos rv- 
<l>oy, to which Plato replied, 
h'4p<py€ ri^^, Aioy€y4s, Diog. 

' Antisthenes in Xen. Symp. 
4, 38, boasts that he slept ad- 
mirably on the simplest bed. 
And the fragment in Demetr. 
de Elocut. 249 (Winckelmann, 
p. 52), belongs here. As far as 
Diogenes (^ict. Dido. i. 24, 7, 
distinctly asserts this of Dio- 
genes) and Crates are concern- 
ed, they slept, as a matter of 
course, on the bare ground. 

* Compare the passages 
quoted p. 54, 4. 

^ That is at Athens; at 
Sparta the rpificoy was univer- 
sal (^Gbttling, 256; Hermcmn^ 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



clothing.^ In scantiness of diet they even surpassed 
the very limited requirements of their fellow coun- 
trymen.^ It is said that Diogenes tried to do without 
fire, by eating his meat raw,^ and he is credited with 
saying that everything, without exception, human 
flesh included, might be used for purposes of food.* 
Even in extreme age he refused to depart from his 
accustomed manner of living,* and lest his friends 
should expend any imnecessary care on his corpse, he 
forbad their burying it at all.^ A life in harmon y 



Antiquit. iii. § 21, 14), from 
which it will be seen, that the 
word did not originally mean 
something worn out, but a 
rough dress which rubbed the 
skin; an Ifjuiriov rplfiov not an 
Ifidriov rtrptfi/jL^yov, and that 
tfidriov rpifiwy yw6yLW0v in Stoh. 
Floril. 5, 67, means a covering 
which had grown rough. 

» This was often done by the 
poor (^Herma^m, 1. c.) Anti- 
sthenes, however, or Diogenes, 
according to others, made this 
dress the dress of his order, 
allowing the rplfiwv to be 
doubled for better protectio^ 
against the cold. Diog, 6 ; 13 ; 
22 ; 76 ; 105. Teles in Stob. 
Floril. 97, 31, p. 215. Mein. 
The Cynic ladies adopted the 
same dress, IHog, 93. This 
single article of dress was 
often in the most miserable 
condition. See the anecdotes 
about Crates, Diog, 90, and the 
verses on him. Ibid. 87. Be- 
cause of the self-satisfaction 
with which Antisthenes ex- 
posed to view the holes in his 
cloak, Socrates is said to have 
observed that his vanity peered 
through them. 2>u^. 8. 

* Their ordinary food con- 
sisted of bread, figs, onions, 
garlic, linseed, but particularly 
of the d4pfiot, or beans of some 
kind. Their drink was cold 
water. Biog. 105 ; 25 ; 48 ; 85 ; 
90; Teles in Stob. Floril. 97, 
31 ; Ibid. p. 215, M. ; Ath^fi. iv. 
156, c; Litdan, V. Auct. 9; 
IHo Chryg. Or. vi. 12 and 21, 
and Gottling, p. 255. But, in 
order to prove their freedom, 
they occasionally allowed a 
pleasure to themselves and 
others. Diog. 55 ; Arigtid, Or. 
XXV. 560 ( WinckeJmann, p. 28). 

« Diog. 34 ; 76 ; Pseudv-Plut. 
de Esu Cam. i. 6, 995; Bio 
Chryg. Or. vi. 25. 

* In Diog. 73, this principle 
is supported by the argument, 
that everything is in every- 
thing else, even flesh in bread, 
&c. Diog, refers for this to a 
tragedy of Thyestes, the writer 
of which was not Diogenes, 
but Philiscus. A similar state- 
ment was subsequently made 
by the Stoics. See Zeller^g 
Stoics, &c. 

» See Diog. 34. 

* See the accounts which 
differ in details in Diog, 79 ; 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





with naturet^ the suppression of everything artificial, 
the most simple satisfaction of all natural wants, is.:^ifi^ 
watchword of his School.^ They never weary of belaud- 
ing the good fortune and the independence which they 
owe to this freedom from wants.' To attain thereto, 
bodily and mental hardships are made a principle/ 
A Diogenes whose teacher did not appear to treat him 
with sufficient severity,* is said to have undertaken 
self-mortification in this behalf.^ Even the scorn 
and contempt necessarily incurred by this manner of 
life were borne by the Cynics with the greatest com- 

52; Cic. Tusc. i. 43, 104; 
JBlian, V. H. viii. 14; Stob, 
Floril. 123, 11. The same is 
repeated by Chrysippus in 
Seafft, Pyrrh. iii. 268; Math, 
xi. 194. 

• Which Diogenes also re- 
quired, witness for instance 
his saying in Diog, 71 : Seov 
odv dinri r&v hxph^rrw irSvwv 
robs Karh ^6ffLV kKoti.ivovs Qv 
McufjL6vtaSf rraph r^v ivoiav kcuco- 


• Compare on this subject 
the expressions of Diogenes in 
JHog. 44; 35; Stob. Floril. 5, 
41 ; 67, the hymn of Cratfes on 
€{n4\€iaf and his prayer to the 
Muses in Julian, Or. vi. 199, in 
addition to what Ptut, de 
Sanit. 7, p. 125, JHag. 85; 93, 
and Stobaus tell of him. Com- 
pare also Lucian, V. Auct. 9, 
and the anecdote of the mouse, 
the sight of which confirmed 
Diogenes in his renunciation of 
the world in Pha, Prof, in Vir- 
tut. 6 ; Diog, 22, 40. 

• Compare the language used 
by Crates and Metrocles in 

Teles in Stob. Floril. 97, 31, 
Mein. and the quotations p. 
303, 2 and 3. 

* Compare p. 250, 1, and 
Diog, 30. Diogenes' training 
appears to have been described 
by Eubulus in the same glow- 
ing terms as that of Cyrus was 
by Xenophon. Exc. e FloriL 
Joan. Damasc. ii. 13, 68; 67. 
Diogenes in Stob. Floril. 7, 18, 
expresses the view that mental 
vigour is the only object of all 
exercise, even that of the 

» Dio Chrys. Or. viii. 2 
{Stob. Floril. 13, 19); conf. 
Diog. 18. 

• According to Diog. 23 ; 34, 
he was in the habit of rolling 
in the summer in the burning 
sand, and in winter of walking 
barefoot in the snow, and em- 
bracing icy columns. On the 
other hand, Philemon's words 
about Crates in Diog. 87, that 
he went about wrapped up in 
summer and in rags in winter, 
are probably only a comedian's 
jest on his beggarly covering. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



posure ; ^ nay, they accustomed themselves thereto,^ on Chap. 
the ground that the reproaches of enemies teach man ^^ 
to know himself,^ and the best revenge you can take 
is to amend your faults.* Should life from ' any 
reason become insupportable, they reserved to them- 
selves the right, as the Stoics did at a later time,® of 
securing their freedom by means of suicide. 

Among external things of which it is necessary to (2) Me- 
be independent, the Cynics included several matters ^^f^^^ 
which other men are in the habit of regarding as Ufe. 
morally good and as duties. To be free in every 
respect, the wise man must be fettered and hampered 
by no relations to others. He must satisfy his social 

* Antisthenes in Diog. 7, 
requires: KtucSos iuco^ovras Kop- 
repeiv fjM\\ov ^ ci \i$ot5 ris /3<£X- 
XoiTo, He also says in Epict, 
Diss. iv. 6, 20 (conf . Diog, 3) : 
fiaffiKikhVy & Kvo€, trpdrreiv [xhy 
eZf KOKws 8* &Ko^€ii'. It is said 
of Diogenes, Diog, 33, and 
:also of Crates, Diog, 89, that 
when his body had been ill- 
treated, he only wrote by the 
side of his blains the names of 
those by whom they had been 

* Diog. 90 says of Crates, rhs 
ir6pyas ivirii^^s i\ot66p€if avy- 
yviJLvd(o»y lavrby rrphs rhs fi\a- 

■ Antisthenes remarks, i>u7^. 
12 : irpcMT^x***' '''®** ix'^pois' trpw- 
Toi yhp rav afiaprriiJuiruy aUrBd- 
vopTcu, He also says in Phit, 
Inim. Util. 6, p. 89, and the 
same saying is attributed to 
Diogenes in De Adul. 36 p. 74 ; 
Prof, in Virt. ii. p. 82: rois 

yvTIffiuy fj ZimHipoov ix'^P^v, 

* Diog. in Plut» Inimic. Util. 
4, p. 88 and Poet. 4, p. 21. 

* When Antisthenes in his 
last illness became impatient 
under his sufferings, Diogenes 
offered him a dagger (Diog, 
18) to put an end to his life, 
which Antisthenes had not the 
courage to use. That Diogenes 
made away with himself is 
indeed asserted in several of 
the accounts to which refer- 
ence has been made, but can- 
not be proved. In JEUan, V. 
H. X. 11, he refuses the con- 
temptuous challenge to put an 
end to his sufferings by sui- 
cide; for the wise man ought 
to live. Nevertheless, Metro- 
cles put an end to himself 
(Diog, 95), not to mention 
Menedemus (Ibid, 100). So 
also Crates in Diog, 86 ; Cle- 
mens, Strom, ii. 412, D. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





(«) Of 

wants by himself alone,* or he will be dependent on 
others, and nothing which is out of his power ought 
to influence his happiness. To these matters belongs 
family life. Not that Antisthenes would do away 
with marriage, because he thought it useful to keep 
up the race of men;^ but Diogenes early discovered 
that this object might be attained by a commimity 
of wives.^ Deeply imbued as these philosophers were 
with Grecian peculiarities, it never occurred to them 
to require, in the spirit of a later asceticism, the en- 
tire uprooting of all sexual desires. Natural impulses 
might, however, be satisfied in a far more simple way.* 

* In Diog. 6, Antisthenes in 
reply to the question, What 
good philosophy had done him, 
answers : rh ZiivwrBai kavr^ S/m- 
\€tv. Out of this came the 
caricature of later Cynicism, 
described by Zitcurn, V. Auct. 
10. Yet Diogenes and Crates 
were anything but haters of 
their fellow-men. 

* Dioff, 1 1 : yafjL'fia'ttv t« [rhv 

^b^veffrdTcus ffvviSjrra ywai^l. 
The conjecture d4>vf<TTdrcus 
( Winltehnarifi, p. 29, according 
to Hermann) appears mis- 
taken : Antisthenes might well 
require €v<t>v4<rTartu vphs renvo- 
Toiiav, women most suited for 
child-bearing, whilst consider- 
ing anyone good enough for a 

» Diog. 72 : ^Xryc 5i koI Koivhs 
elvou duv rhs yvvaiKaSy ydfJLOv fill' 
d4va yofiii»v, k\Xh rhv velircurra 
Tp ireiffOelffTi ffwiivoA ' KOivohs tk 
Zik TovTo Kot Toxts vlios. The 
correctness of this is supported 
by the fact that Zeno and 

Chrysippus, according to IHog^ 
vii. 33, 131, projected the same 
state of things for their ideal 

* Something of the same 
kind has been already observed! 
in Socrates, p. 163, 1, With 
the Cynics this treatment of 
the relation between the sexes 
becomes an extravagance and 
a deformity. In Xen. Symp. 
4, 38, Antisthenes boasts of his 
comforts, since he only asso- 
ciates with those fair dames to 
whom others would have no- 
thing to say. That he did so 
on principle is stated in Diog^ 
3. That he declared adultery 
permissible, as Clemens. FloriL 
V. 18 says, is by no means cer- 
tain. He is even said to have 
satisfied his lusts in a coarser 
way, complaining that hunger 
could not be treated in the 
same way. Bruokery 1. 880, 
Steinhart, p. 305, and GottHng, 
p. 276, doubt the truth of these 
and similar stories. Without 
vouching for their accuracy, it 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Their mendicant life, moreover, not affording them 
an opportmiity^ for home pleasures, it is readily 
understood that they were in general averse to mar- 
riage,^ and to feminine society, or at least treated 
family life as a thing indiflferent.* Diogenes i& said 


may be enough to say that they 
are not only quoted by IHog, 
46, 49 ; Dio Clirys, Or. vl. 16, 
p. 203, R. ; iMciim, V. Auct. 
10; Galen. Loc. Affect, vi. 5; 
viii. 419, K. ; Athen. iv. 168, f ; 
Dio Chrys. 34 Horn, in Math. p. 
398, C. ; 8. Aug. Civ. Dei, xiv. 
20 ; but also, according to Plut. 
Stob. Rep. 21, 1, p. 1044, Chry- 
sippus had on this score vindi- 
cated the Cynics, and accor- 
ding to Sem. Phyrrh. iii. 206, 
Zeno appears to have done the 
same. Dio. probably borrowed 
his revolting extracts from 
Chrysippus. The things are, 
however, not so out of keeping 
with the ways of Antisthenes, 
that we could call them im- 
possible; and the very thing 
which to us appears so unin- 
telligible, this public want of 
modesty, makes them very 
likely to be true of Diogenes. 
If true, they were an attempt 
on his part to expose the folly 
of mankind. It is from this 
point of view rather than on 
any moral grounds that the 
Cynics conduct their attacks 
on adulterers and stupid spend- 
thrifts. To them it seemed 
foolish in the extreme to incur 
much toil, danger, and expense 
for an enjoyment, which might 
be had much more easily. See 
I>iog.i; 61 ; 60 ; 66 ; 89 ; Plut. 
Ed. Pu. 7, Schl. p. 5; Stob. 
Floril. 6; 39; 62. Diogenes 

is also accused of having 
publicly practised unchastity, 
Diog. 69 ; Theod. Cur.' Gr. Aff . 
xii. 48, p. 172. In Corinth the 
younger Lais, ' according to 
Athen. xiii. 688, b, or Phryne, 
according to Tertull. Apol. 46, 
is said to have had a whim to 
bestow on him her favours 
gratuitously, whereas the philo- 
sopher did not despise others. 
Clemens (Hom, V. 18) repre- 
sents him as purchasing them 
by scandalous conditions. In 
his tragedies (according to 
Julia/n, Or. vii. 210, c) stood 
things that one might believe 
^1^€p4>o^^l/ kfi^rirovpylas oifSh rous 
iraipcus &iro\cAc/^0ai. On the 
other hand his morality is com- 
mended, Eloc. 261. 

* The case of Crates is an 
exception, and even Crates had 
not wooed Hipparchia, He 
only married her, when she 
would not renounce her affec- 
tion for him, but was prepared 
to share his mode of life. He 
certainly married his children 
in a peculiar way, according 
to Diog. 88 ; 93. 

2 See the apophthegms in 
Diog. 3, and Ludan, V. Auct. 
9 : fdjxov B^ itficKriaciK koI TralSteu 
K(d varplBos. Far less objec- 
tionable is the maxim of Antis- 
thenes in Diog. 12 : rhy dUcuov 
fttpl 7r\€iovos troiciffdat rod ffvyyt" 

• See pp. 310, 1, and 277. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


(Jhap. to have seen nothing revolting' in marriage between 
^ the nearest relations. 

^^\/V Another matter which they considered to be 

eirn hf§ '' 

equally indifierent with family life for the wise man, 
was Qivil life. Indeed the sharp contrast between 
slavery and freedom does not affect the wise man. 
The man who is really free can never be a slave — 
for a slave is one who is afraid — and for the same 
reason a slave can never be free. The wise man is 
the natural ruler of others, although he may be 
called a slave, in the same way that the physician is 
the ruler of the sick. Accordingly it is said that 
Diogenes, when about to be sold, had the question 
asked : Who wants a master ? declining the offer of 
his friends to buy him back.* Not that such conduct 
was a vindication of slavery. On the contrary, the 
Cynics seem to have been the first among Greeks to 
declare it an institution opposed to nature,^ quite in 

* Dio Chrys. Or. x. 29, whose yhp thv fi€P ^v\ov thai rhp 8* 

statement is confirmed by its iKeiSfpov, ^iaei 5' oh&kv Ziaip4- 

agreeing witb the universal p^iv. ZiSvep ohih dlKaiov, filaiov 

doctrine of the Stoics. See ydp. The contrast between 

ZeUer's Stoics, &c., p. 4. v^/i^ and ipian is not found so 

' IMog. 29 ; 74, Compare strongly drawn at that time 

XJp. 286, 4 ; 332, 4. According except among the Sophists and 

to Diog. 16, Antisthenes wrote Cynics. Nor is it only met 

iTfpl iXtxScplas KoX hovKtlai, and with in their religious views, 

perhaps this is the origin of the On the contrary, their whole 

account in Stob. Flor. 8, 14. politics, and even their practi- 

■ For this we have certainly cal philosophy, are governed 

no direct authority. Still (as by the effort to bring human 

has been already observed, p. society from an artificial state 

171, 4), it is probably in re- recognised by law and custom 

ference to the Cynics that to a pure state of nature. We 

AHgt. Polit. i. 3 ; 1253, b, 20, should hardly look in sophistic 

says : to7s fi^v Soice? imffriiti'n t« circles for the opponents of 

rts thai Tj ^ttnrortia . . . ro7s d\ slavery whom Aristotle men- 

waph i>{fatp rh 5«<nr<Jfc4i' • wJ/xy tions, where the rule of the 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 


conformity with their principle, that every difference Chap. 


between men other than that of virtue and vice is ' 

miimportant and has nothing to do with the law of 
nature and reason. Yet they did not go so far as to 
attempt even in a small circle (as the Essenes did 
at a later time) the abolition of slavery, regarding the 
outward state as something indifferent, the wise man 
even in slavery being a free man. Nor was it other- 
wise with civil life. The wise man of the Cynics 
feels himself above the restraints which civil life 
imposes, without therefore feeling any impulse to 
mix himself up in such matters ; for where could be a 
constitution which would satisfy his requirements? 
A popular government is severely censured by Antis- 
thenes.* An absolute monarch only appeared to 
these freedom-loving philosophers a bad and miser- 
stronger over the weaker was which' do not distinguish the 
regrarded as the most conform- good from the bad {IHog. 6 ; €), 
able to nature. But the view must be intended for a hit at 
is all the more in keeping with democracy. The saying in 
a school which from no side Diog, 8, that should the Athe- 
could allow that one portion of nians call their asses horses, 
mankind enjoy the right, quite it would be quite as good 
independently of their moral as choosing incompetent gene- 
state, to govern the rest, the rals— must also be directed 
claim of the wise man to govern against a popular form of 
the fool resting upon reason, government. According to 
and naturally all men being Athen, v. 220, d, Antisthenes 
citizens of one state ; between had made a sharp attack on all 
fellow-citizens the relation of the popular leaders at Athens, 
master and slave cannot exist. Likewise in IHog, 24 ; 41, Dio- 
* Arist. Pol. iii. 13 ; 1284, a, genes calls them uxA.ow 8ioicd- 
15, tells the fable — the applica- vovs^ and he amuses himself at 
tion of which to a democracy the expense of Demosthenes. 
is obvious — of the hares sug- Ihid. 34, on which see Epict, 
gesting universal equality to Diss. iii. 2, II, See also what 
the lions. The blame which was said of Socrates, p. 166. 
he attaches to those states, 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 




able man.* Aristocratical institutions fell far below 
their ideal, none being adapted for the rule of wise 
men : for what law or custom can fetter him, whose 
life is regulated by the laws of virtue?^ What 
country can be large enough for those who regard 
themselves as citizens of the world ?^ Allowing 
therefore a conditional necessity for a state and laws/ 
the Cynics* refused in their horaelessness to take any 
part in civil life- They wished to be citizens of the 
world, not of any one atate ; their ideal state, as far 
as they do sketch it, is a destruction of all civil life.® 

* Compare Xen, Symp. 4, 36 ; 
Dio Chrys, Or. vi. 47; Stoh. 
Floril. 49, 47 ; 97, 26 ; Diog, 60. 
Also Plut, Adul. et Am. c. 27, 
p. 68. 

* Antisthenes, in Diog, 11, 
says: rhp {rdtjtov ou Kara rohs 
Ketfifpovs v6fiovs rroXire^fffffBai 
iA.\i Korii rhy rrji itpfrfis. Dio- 
genes, iHd. 38 : f(j>curK€ 5' iKTt- 
TiOevai T^XP h^^ Bdp<roSj w6fJLV 5^ 
^^fftv^ widn hi \6yop. This 
antithesis of v6fxos and ip^is 
seems to be what Plato has in 
view, Phil. 44, C. See p. 294, 4. 

* Diog. 63 says of Diogenes : 
ipwrnStls v66€v tin, KoaiJLOiroKlrjiSy 
l«^i?. See p. 167, 8. Ibid. 72 : 
nSvriv Tf opOify troXiretav elvat 
ri\v 4v K6(rix(p. Antisthenes, ibid, 
12 : T^ ffotp^ ^4vov ovBky M* 
Hiropou, Crates, ibid. 98 : 

ovx fU vdrpas fioi v^pyos, oif fiia 

wdtrns 5i x*P^^^ *^^^ ir6\urfxa nai 

erot/iof TihTv MtatroffBai vdpa. 
The same individual in Plut. 
de Adul. 28, p. 69, shows that 
banishment is no evil, and ac- 
cording to Diog. 93 (conf. Ael. 
V. H. iii. 6) he is said to have 

given a negative answer to 
Alexander's question, whether 
he did not wish to see Thebes 
rebuilt: l^x^iv 5i varpiBa A5o- 
^iay Kot rrtplay iviXorra rfi r^xV 
hoi tiLoyivovs etvai ttoXirjiS kv^'Ki- 
fiov\t{nov ip06if<p. See also 
Bpict. Diss. iii. 24, 66. I/udan, 
V. Auct. 8. Also the Stoic 
doctrine in Zeller's Stoics, &c., 
chap, on Stoics, and what has 
been said above, p. 278, 1, 

* The confused remarks of 
Diogenes in Diog. 72 support 
this statement. 

» Antisthenes was not without 
a citizen's rights (see Hermann^ 
Antiquit. 1, § 118), although a 
proletarian by birth and cir- 
cumstances. Diogenes was 
banished from Sinope, and 
lived at Athens as a foreigner. 
Crates had chosen this life; 
after his native town had 
been destroyed. Monimus was 
a slave whom his master had 
driven away. 

• Stob. Floril. 45, 28 : 'Kmi- 
trOeinjs ^pvrndels «•«! Ay ris Tpoff- 
4\0ot TTOKirelc^, cTire KoBdrtp irupl, 
fi-flTf \lav iyyhs tva iih Ko^Sffifirt 
v6^p« Xva fi^ pty^ffTis. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



All mankind are to live together like a flock. No 
nation may have its own special laws and boundaries 
severing it from others. Confining themselves to 
the barest necessaries of life, needing no gold, that 
source of so much mischief, abstaining from marriage 
and family life, they wished to return to the simpli- 
city of a state of nature;* the^ leading thought- of 
t heir enlarged political sympathies being not so 
much the~onehess an d rtie union of all mankind, but 

thft frftP^nm of fhp inrliATiHnfll frnm f.hft bgnds pf 

social life and the limi ts of nationality. Here again 


* The above description rests 
only in part on direct testi- 
mony, but the combination 
which is the basis of it does 
not lack great probability. We 
know on authority that Dio- 
genes in his iroXirtia {Diog, 
80) demanded a community of 
■ wives and children, and that 
in the same treatise he pro- 
posed a coinao^e of bones or 
stones (JurrpaeyaXoi) instead of 
gold and silver, -4^Atf». iv. 159, e. 
We know further that Zeno's 
iro\iT€(a ran to this effect : %va 
fi^ Karh 'k6\€is firfih Karh Miijlovs 
oUcufi^Vf tSlois cKaaroi Ziupia'iJ.4voi 
HueadoiSt iXXh irdinas hfBpibKovs 
7iy^fi,€$a ^fifiSras koL woXJras cTr 
8^ $los f Kol K6<riJMSf &aw€p &.y4\ris 
ffvyv6fiou v6fi^ KOip^ rp€4>ofi4yiiSf 
Plwt. Alex. Vit. i. 6, p. 329; 
and since this treatise of Zeno 
was always considered to ex- 
press the opinions of the Cynic 
School, we have every reason 
to look in it for a Cynic's views. 
That such views were on the 
whole advocated by Antis- 
thenes, probably in the treatise 

V€p\ y6fiov ^ rrepl iroAirffar, 
which appears to be identical 
with the voXiTuths duiKoyos men- 
tioned by Athen, v. 220, d, is 
in itself probable, and is con- 
firmed by Plato's Politicus. 
Eejecting, as his dialogue does, 
the analogy between states- 
manship and the superinten- 
dence of a flock, we might 
naturally think that Plato was 
provoked to it by some such 
theory; and since we know 
from Plutarch's account of 
Zeno, that the Cynics reduced 
the idea of the state to that of 
a herd of men, it is most 
natural to think of them. 
Moreover, the description of 
the natural state, Bep. ii. 372, 
appears also to refer to Antis- 
thenes. Plato at first describes 
it as though from himself, but 
he afterwards clearly intimates 
that it belongs to another, 
when he calls it a state fit 
for pigs. Nor do we know of 
anyone else to whom it could 
be better referred than to the 
founder of the Stoic School. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap. may be seen the negative spirit of their morality, 

' destitute of all creative power. 

(r) Sup- The same character may be recognised in a feature 

w^XX ^^^ ^^ ^b® mos^, revolting in Cynicism — their de- 
liberate suppression of the natural feeling of shame. 
This feeling they did not consider altogether un- 
reasonable,^ but they urged that you need only be 
ashamed of what is bad, and that what is in itself 
good may not only be unblushingly discussed, but 
done without reserve before the eyes of all.* They 
therefore permitted themselves what they considered 
natural, without regard to places, not shrinking even 
from doing in the public streets^ what other men 

* It is expressly told of Dio- 
genes, Diog, 37 ; 64, that he ex- 
postulated with a woman who 
lay in an indecent position in 
a temple, and that he called 
blushes the colour of virtue. 

' See the following note, and 
do. Off. i. 36, 128 : Nee vero 
audiendi sunt Cynici aut si qui 
fuerunt Stoici paene Cynici, 
qui reprehendunt et irrident, 
quod ea, quae turpia non sint 
(for instance, the begetting of 
children) nominibus ac verbis 
flagitiosa dicamus (that we 
consider it unseemly to name 
them), ilia autem quas turpia 
sunt (stealing, &c.) nominibus 
appellemus suis. 

• This is especially said of 
Diogenes, Diog. 22 : xorr) rp&K^ 

KoBti^v Koi iiaXty6fi€yos, and 
according to JDiog, 69, he sup- 
ported this by the argument. 
If it is at all allowable to 
breakfast, it must be allowable 

to breakfast in public. Fol- 
lowing out this principle, he 
not only took his meals in pub- 
lic in the streets {Biog. 48 ; 68), 
but he also did many other 
eccentric and startling things, 
in the sight of all passers by 
{IHog. 36; 36). It is even 
asserted of him, Biog, 69 : 
ct(60€i 8^ tratn-a iroitiv 4r r^ l^-^^^Vt 
fcai T^ A^ftrrrpos Kcti rh *A<ppo9l'nis. 
Theod. Cur. Gr. Aff. xii. 48, p. 
172, says the same t)f him, 
mentioning an instance. We 
have already, p. 320, 4, observed 
that these statements can 
hardly be altogether fictitious. 
But it is incredible that Crates 
and Hipparchia, as is said to 
have been the case, consum- 
mated their nuptials in the 
midst of numerous spectators. 
There are, however, not a few 
authorities for it : Diog, 97 ; 
Sext. Pyrrh. i. 163; iii. 200; 
Clemens j Stromat. iv. 623, A. ; 
Apul, Floril. 14; Loot. Inst. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


prefer to do in secret. Lest he should in any Chap. 


way forego his independence, the Cynic puts out of 
sight all regard for others, and what he is not 
ashamed of by himseK, he thinks he need not be 
ashamed of before others. The opinion of men i? to 
him indifierent. He is neither hurt by their fami- 
liarity with his personal life, nor need he fear such 

To the same source may be referred the Cynic {d) Re- 
attitude towards religion. No course of study under ^'^j^^^^ 
Antisthenes was needed to make men doubt the truth 
of the popular faith. Such doubts were raised on all 
sides, and since the appearance of the Sophists, had 
permeated the educated classes. Not even the So- 
cratic circle had passed unscathed.* From his inter- 
course with Grorgias and the other Sophists, Antis- 
thenes in particular must have been familiar with 
freer views respecting the Gods and their worship, 
and specially with the principles of the Eleatics, 
whose teaching in other respects he also worked into 
his own. For him, however, these views had a pecu- 
liar meaning. Hence, too, may be explained the 

iii. 15, who mentions it as the phers, that a public consum- 
common practice of the Cynics; mation of nuptials was permis- 
8, Atig. Civ. Dei, xiv. 20, who sible. On the other hand, we 
does not altogether credit it, have no reason to doubt what 
but does not improve it by his Diog. 97 states, that Hippar- 
interpretation. Yet all these chla went about in public 
are later authorities. The dressed as a man. 
whole story may rest upon * As we gather from the dia- 
some such story as that this log^es of Socrates with Aristo- 
married couple once passed a demus and Euthydemus, Xen, 
night in the aroii xouclXri, or Mem. i. 4 ; iv. 3 ; not to men- 
else upon the theoretical asser- tion Critias. 
tion of some Cynic philoso- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




sharp and hostile attitude of the Cynics to the 
popular faith, in which they so distinctly deviated 
from the example of Socrates. The wise man, inde- 
pendent of everything external, cannot possibly be 
dependent on a traditional faith. He cannot feel 
pledged to follow popular opinions, or to connect his 
well-being with customs and devotional practices, 
which have nothing to do with his moral state.* 
Thus in religious matters the Cynics are decidedly on 
the side of free thought. The existence of a God 
they do not deny, nor can their wise man do without 
one ; but they object to a number of gods resembling 
men — popular gods, owing, as they say,^ their existence 
to tradition : in reality there is but one Grod, who 
resembles nothing visible, and cannot be represented 
by any symbol.^ The same reasoning holds good of 


* In this way we most ex- 
plain the free thought of Aris- 
todemus, Mem. i. 4, 2, 9-11; 
14; who is also described bj 
PlatOf Symp. 173, B., as a kin- 
dred spirit to Antistbenes. 

« Oic, N. D. i. 13, 32 : < An- 
tistbenes in eo libro, qni phy- 
siciis inscribitur, popolares 
[r^fiy] Deos multos, natnra- 
lem [^^<rct] unnm esse dicens/ 
whidi is repeated by Jiflnuo. 
Fel Oct. 19, S, and Lact. Inst, 
i. 5, epit. 4. Clemens^ Protrept. 
46, C, and also Stromat. v. 
601, A., says : ^Atrriadiyris . . . 
O^br ohiityl iouctrcu <^(rlr * 8t^€p 
ainhr obi€U ^KfjuaBwf i^ €lK6yos 
Uvarai, Theod, Cur. Gr. Affect, 
i, 75, p. 14 : 'ApTure4viis .... 
irtfi. rov Owv twv %\mv /3of * &ir^ 
tlndvos oh yifwpl(erai, i^BaXfutis 

alnhp obiels iKfuxBeiy i^ ^hcSros 
i^yarai. Tertull. Ad Nat. ii. 2 : 
In reply to the question, Quid 
in ccelis agatur ? Diogenes re- 
plied : Nunquam ascendi ; to 
the question. Whether there 
were any Gods ? he answered : 
Nescio nisi ut sint expedire. 
No very great dependence can, 
it is true, be placed in Tertul- 
lian's sayings. Id. Apol. 14; 
Ad. Nat. i. 10 : Diogenes nescis 
quid in Herculem ludit, with- 
out, however, giving further 
particulars. Compare what 
was said of Socrates, p. 176. 

• The Cynics are therefore 
Atheists in the ancient sense 
of the term, i.e, they denied 
the Gods of the state, although 
from their point of view they 
were certainly right in reject- 
ing the charge of atheism. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the worship of the gods. There is but one way of Chap, 

pleasing God — by virtue ; everything else is super- 
stition. Wisdom and uprightness make us followers 
and friends of the gods. What is generally done to 
secure their favour is worthless and immeaning. T^ 
wise man^ hpnpurs^Gyd by yirtuej and not by sacffi- 
fice,^ which Grod^does not require.^ He knows that a 
temple is not more holy than any other place.' He 
does not pray for things which are considered goods 
by the unwise ; not for riches, but for righteousness.^ 
Herewith the ordinary notion respecting prayer 
is also surrendered ; for everyone owes virtue to his 
own exertions. Hence Diogenes may be understood 
ridiculing prayers and vows.^ The same sweeping 
judgment is pronounced on oracles, prophecy, and 
prophets.® The mystic rites also were assailed with 
biting scom,^ both by Diogenes and Antisthenes; 
these philosophers, as far as religious views are con- 
Nothing follows from the anec- and philosophers, he thinks 
dotes in Diog, 37 ; 42. man the most intelligent being, 

* JuUan, Or. vi. 199, B., ex- but looking at interpreters of 
cnsing Diogenes because of his dreams, or prophets, or credu- 
poverty, says that he never lous believers in them, he con- 
entered a temple or offered siders him the most foolish of 
sacrifice. Crates, ibid. 200, A., creatures. Similar statements 
promises to honour Hermes and in Diog. 43 ; 48 ; Theod. Cur. 
the Muses oh Soirdvcus rpv^cpaif , Gr. Aff. vi. 20, p. 88 ; and Bio. 
dXA' ipcTatf i<rfoi#. Or. x. 2 ; 17. Antisthenes ap- 

« See p. 316, 2. pears also in Xen. Sym. 8, 6, to 

• See Diog. 73 : fiij8ci' t« have doubts upon the subject 
tfroiroi' cTi^ai i\ Upov ri Ka$€7y. of the 9oufi6viov of Socrates, but 

* See the prayer of Crates in no conclusion can be formed 
JuHa/n 1. c. and IHog. 42. from a passage so jocular. 

» Compare the anecdotes in ' Diog. 4 ; 39 ; 42 ; Plvt. Aud. 
Dutg. 37 ; 69. Poet. 6, p. 21 ; Clemens, Pro- 

• In IHog. 24 he says that, trept. 49, C. 
looking at pilots, physicians. 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 





cemed, holding a perfectly independent attitude 
_ towards the popular faith. Not but that they gladly 
took hold of points which mythology supplied for their 
own arguments^ taking all the more occasion t<o do so, in 
proportion to the earnestness of their desire to influence 
the masses : Antisthenes being aided in so doing by the 
sophistical training which be had previously enjoyed.* 
The various traditions must all be explained in har- 
I mony with this view. Hence we find Antisthenes 
in no small degree engaged in allegorical interpre- 
tations of the myths and the poets, and in an expla- 
nation of Homer, which he committed to writing in 
numerous volumes.^ Looking for a hidden meaning ^ 
in legendary stories, he was everywhere able to dis- 
cover moral teaching,and to build on moral reflections.* 
Indeed, by laying down the further axiom^ that the 
poet does not always express his own sentiments,^ he 

» For the allegorical inter- 
pretations of that period con- 
sult Kriscke, Forsch. 234 ; Xen, 
Sym. 3, 6 ; Plato, Theaetet. 153, 
C. ; Rep. ii. 378, D. ; lo, 530, 
C; Phaedrus, 229, C. ; and 
Zeller'H Phil. d. Griech. i. 930, 
3; also pp. 755, 831; Stoics, 

* Diog. 17, mentions twelve 
or thirteen volumes of his on 
Homer and various portions of 
the Homeric poems, and one 
on Amphiaraus. Here, too, 
belong the treatises on Hercu- 
les. Julian, Or. vii. 209, A. ; 
215, C. ; 217, A., also testifies 
to the fact of his frequently 
using myths. See Krisehet 

' The inr6vota or liivoia, Xen, 

Symp. 3, 6 ; Plato, Rep. ii. 378, 
D. ; lo, 630, C. 

* Thus on Od. i. 1, he en- 
quired in what sense TroXyrpv- 
via was meant for praise. On 
Od. V. 211; vii. 257, he re- 
marked, that no reliance could 
be placed upon lovers* pro- 
mises. In n. XV. 123, he found 
his doctrine of the oneness of 
virtue. See the passages in 
Winkehnan/n, ^, 23-28. 

* Dio Chrys, Or. liii. 5, says 
that whereas the same had been 
previously said of Zeno, 6 t^ 
\Ayo5 ol/TOs *Avri(rB4vovs iorl 
trpSrcpor, Sri r^ fi^y 8<{(p r^ 9h 

6 fihv ovK i^€ipydffaTO abrhpf 6 Hk 
Koff €Kcurrop r&p M fi4povs 49^- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


had no diflBcultj in finding anything anywhere. Chap. 
Traces of this allegorical interpretation may also be ' 

found in Diogenes.^ Yet the Cynics do not seem to 
have carried this process nearly so far as the Stoics ;^ 
which iis also quite natural, Cynic teaching being 
very imperfectly expanded,^ and the taste for learned 
activity being with them very small. 

From the above it will be seen in what sense the E. Their 
Cynics spoke of the self-suflScingness of virtue. The ^onthe^ 
wise man must be absolutely and in every respect wwW. 
independent; /independent of wants, of desires, of 
prejudices and^of after-thoughts^ The devotion and 
strength of will with which they compassed this end, 
has certainly something grand about it. Disre- 
garding, however, the limits of individual existence, 
and putting out of sight the conditions of a natural 
and a moral life, the Cynic grandeur borders on pride, 
and their strength of principle on self-will. A value 
out of all proportion is attached to the form of life, 
to such an extent that they again become dependent 
on external circumstances. The sublime becomes 
ridiculous, and every humour at last claims to be 
honoured as being higher wisdom. ([Plato, or who- 
ever it was who called Diogenes a SoCTates gone mad j 
was not far wrong in what he said.^ 

* According to ^oh, Floril. • Even their Ethics are 
29, 92, he explained the legend scanty enough, and their sys- 
of Medea boiling up the old tern gave no opportunity for 
into young to mean that, by those lengthy, physical dis- 
bodily exercise, she made ef- cussions, on which the Stoics 
feminate men young again. were so great. 

* Dio says this expressly, * Mliauy V. H. xiv. 33 ; Biog, 
and little has come down to us vi. 54. 

of Cynic interpretations. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





Notwithstanding these pretensions, the indepen- 
dence of these philosophers was not so great that they 
could dispense with every relation to others. It was 
only natural that they should wish to see all virtuous 
persons united as friends ; ^ and, besides, they con- 
sidered it the wise man's business to raise the rest of 
mankind to his own level. Anxious not to monopo- 
lise the blessings of virtue, but to share them with 
others, they sought for work as educators of their 
people, desiring, if possible, to bring a lax and 
eflfeminate nation back to the days of moral strict- 
ness and simplicity. The mass of men are fools, 
slaves of pleasure, suflFering from self-conceit and 
pride.^ The Cynic is a physician to heal their dis- 
ease,^ a guide to lead them to what is good.* Hence 
he considers it bis mission to care for the outcast 

' Diog. 11 : Ka\ ip€ur$iiff€<r$ai 
bh fx6vov y^p ctScf'ai rhi^ troiphyf 
rivwv yp^ ip^^' 12: i^idpcurros 
6 i,ya065 * ou ffirovdaiot <fii\oi. 
Antisthenes wrote both an 
'EptcTiKhs and an ^EpiJofitvos 
{Diog, 14; 18), and he had 
mentioned love in his Hercules 
{Prod, in Ale. 98, 6 ; WinckeU 
mann, p. 16). An ^EpariKhs of 
Diogenes is also mentioned, 
IHog, 80. 

2 See p. 314. 

' Diog, 4 : 'Ai'xio'flfVijs ipoyrri- 
$€\s 8i^ ri iriKpas roh fiadrircus 
^irtxX^TTci, KotX oi tarpol, <pri(ri, 
ro7s Kdfipovaiy • Ibid, 6 : Koi oi 
iajpol i^Tjo**, fierk rmv voaoivrnov 
^iffiv, &W' oh TTvpirrovcriv, In 
Stoh, Floril. 13, 26, Diogenes, 
when asked why he remained 
in Athens, whilst he was always 

praising the Spartans, replied : 
ovb\ yhp iarphs iyieias Av voimi- 
Khs ip rots {fyioivowTi r^v Hiarpi- 
fi^y iroieTrat. Accordingly, Dio- 
genes calls himself in Lucian^ 
V. Auct. 8, i\€vd€p«tr^s r&y ity- 
BpdrKwv KcX iarphs r&v iraOuv, and 
he expresses astonishment in 
Dio. Or. viii. 7, that men le.-s 
frequently apply to him, the 
healer of souls, than they do to 
an oculist or dentist. 

* When Diogenes was pur- 
chased by Xeniades, he is said 
to have told Xeniades that he 
would have to obey his slave, 
just as in another case he 
would have to obey a pilot or 
physician. Diog., 30 ; 36 ; conf . 
74 ; Plut, An. Vitios, c. 3, p. 
499 ; Stob. Flor. 3, 63 ; PhilOy 
Qu. Omn. Pr. Lib. 833, E. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


and despised, only the sick needing a physician,* and Chap. 

no more fears contamination from such intercourse 1— 

than the sun fears impurity from shining in the 
dirtiest haunts.^ 

The improvement of mankind, however, is no 
easy task.^ He who will be saved must hear the 
truth ; nothing being more destructive than flattery/ 
Yet truth is always unpleasant;* none save either 
an incensed enemy or a real friend dare tell it.^ This 
friendly service, the Cynics propose to render to 
mankind.'^ If in so doing they give ofiFence, matters 
not to them ;® a good kind of man being always dis- 
agreeable to bear with ;* he who annoys no one is 
of no good to any one.*® It was moreover a principle 
of theirs to pitch their demands both in word and 
example above what they really wanted, because men 
only imperfectly conform to them.** Thus they pressed 
themselves on friends and strangers alike with their 
exhortations,*^ which Diogenes, in particular, in- 

» According to Epicft. iii. 24, • See p. 319, 3. 

66, Diogenes read a lesson to * ' Diogenes in Stoh, Flor. 13, 

the pirates who captured him. 26 : ol fihy &Woi K^ves rohs ix' 

It cannot, however, have done Opohs hdKvoveiv, iyi) 9k rohs 

much good, for they sold him <t>i\ous, Tvo (r<&ffw, 

notwithstanding; and the story ® See p. 318. 

is altogether very uncertain. •* dva-fiiffratcroy €lyai rhy hr- 

' 2>u?y. 63, and above, p. 332, 3. retov, — ^Antisth. in Philo. Qu. 

» Diog. 4, and p. 332, 3. Omn. Pr. Lib. 869, C. 

* Diog. 4 ; 51 ; 92 ; StoK »« In Phit. Virt. Mort. c. 12, 
Floril. 14, 16 ; Antisthenes in g, E., p. 452, Diogenes say« of 
Phut, Vit. Pud. c. 18, g, E., p. Plato : rl 5' iK^tvos ?x«* ^^H-y^yy 
536. ts ToffovTOv XP^^^^ <pi\oao^Sav 

* Diogenes in Exc. e Floril. oMva \€\^riK€v ; 
Joan. Damasc. ii. 31, 22 : t^ " See p. 308, 1. 

iXrieh itiKpdv 4<rri koI dijSis rois " Compare what Diog. vi. 10, 
iLronro7i. It is like light to says of Antisthenes, and vi. 26 ; 
those who have weak eyes. 46 ; 65 of Diogenes ; also 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





stilled in the coarsest manner,* although more gentle 
traits are not altogether wanting.* At the same time 
the coarseness of their manner was somewhat re- 
lieved by their humour in which Diogenes and Crates 
more particularly excelled^ They loved to clothe 
serious teaching in the form of a joke, or of poetry,^ 
and to hurl sharp-pointed words* at the folly of man- 
kind;® Diogenes even, like the oriental prophets, 
giving greater force to his utterances by symbolical 
actions, and thus attracting for them attention.* 

No doubt the position occupied by the Cynics in 
the Greek world is a peculiar one. Bidiculed because 
of their eccentricities,^ and admired for their self- 

Imcian V. Anct. 10. Because 
of his importunity, Crates re- 
ceived the name of Bup^navoi- 
KTiis.^Dwg. 86 ; Plut, Qu. 
Conv. ii. 1, 7, 4, p. 632 ; Apul. 
Fioril. iv. 22. 

» Diog. 24; 32; 46; Ex.e 
FloriL Jo. Damasc. i. 7, 43. 

* Plut, De Adul. 28, p. 69, 
relates that when Demetrius 
Phalerius, after his banish- 
ment, fell in with Crates, he 
was not a little surprised at 
being received with friendly 
words of warm comfort in- 
stead of the violent language 
he expected. The attractive- 
ness of the conversation of 
Antisthenes and Diogenes is 
also commended, Diog. 14. 
Conf. Xen. Symp. 4, 61. 

» See Diog. 27 ; 83 ; 86 ; De- 
metr. de Elocut. 170 ; 259 ; 261 ; 
Plut. Tranqu. An. 4, p. 466; 
Julian, Or. vii. 209, a ; Antisth. : 
tlifia Bih r&y fi^iBav air^77€AAe, 
Similarly, J&iif. 216, c; 217, a. 

* Hermog. Progym. c 3 ; 
Tlieo. Progym. c. 6 ; Mcol. Pro- 
gym, c. 3. 

* Abimdant examples of 
these ways of the Cynics are 
to be found in the hrro^OiyiJuara 
of Diogenes, in his sixth book, 
and in Stohceus' Fioril. See 
also WinckeVmann, Antisth. 
Frag. ; Plut. Prof, in Virt c. 11, 
p. 82 ; Virt. Doc. c. 2, p. 439 ; 
Coh. Ira, c. 12, p. 460 ; Curios, 
c. 12, p. 521 ; Cup. Div. c 7, 
p. 626 ; Exil. c. 7, p. 602 ; An. 
Seni. s. Ger. Hep. i. 5, p. 783 ; 
conf. Praec. c. 26, 141 ; De Alex. 
Virt. c. 3, p. 336 ; JSpict. Diss, 
iii. 2, 11 ; Gell. xviii. 13, 7 ; 
jyrtullian, Apol. 39; not to 
mention others. 

* See Diog. 26 ; 31 ; 39 ; 64 ; 
41 (the lantern) ; Stob. Flor. 4, 
84. This eccentricity becomes 
a caricature in Menedemus, 
Diog. 102. 

' Diog. 83, 87, 93. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


denial, despised as beggars, and feared as moralists, Chap. 

. X.III 
full of contempt for the follies, of pity for the moral 1__ J 

miseries of their fellow men, they met both the 
wisdom and the effeminacy of their time with the 
rude vigour of a resolute will, hardened even to in- 
sensibility. Possessing the pimgent, ever ready native /"'/ 
wit of the plebeian, benevolent, with few wants, full ^ \r 
of whims and jokes, and national even to their very )^ y\ 
dirtiness, they resemble in many points the friars of 
the Middle Ages;^ nor can it be doubted that, not- 
withstanding all their extravagances, their action was 
in many ways beneficiaL For all that, philosophy 
could expect but little from this mendicant philo- 
sophy. Not until it had been supplemented by other 
elements, regulated and received into connection 
with a wider view of the world in the Stoa, was 
Cynicism able to bear fruit on a large scale. The 
Cynic School, as such, appears to have had only a very 
narrow extension, a fact which will not appear strange, 
considering the terrible severity of its demands. 
Besides it was incapable of philosophic expansion, 
and even its practical action was chiefly of a negative 
character. It attacked the vices and the follies of 
men. It required independence and self-denial, but 
it separated man from man. It placed the individual 
entirely by himself, thus offering play to moral pride. 

* The Cynics really have a rean asceticism, which exer- 

historical connection with the cised, partly directly and 

monks of Christendom. The partly through the Essenes, so 

link between the two is the important an influence on 

Cynicism of the time of the eastern monasticism. 
Caesars, and the late Pythago- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, vanity, and the most capricious whims, which were 

not left miindiilged. The abstract sovereignty of the 

personal will resulted ultimately in individual caprice, 
and thus Cynicism trenched on the ground of the 
philosophy of pleasure, to which as a system it was 
diametrically opposed. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 






Eespecting the Cyrenaic branch of the Socratic 
school, the information we possess is quite as im- 
perfect, or even more so, than that which we A, ERttory 
have touching the Cynics. Aristippus ^ of Cyrene,^ Cyrenaic*, 
the founder, had been brought to Athens * by a call 
from Socrates, whose extraordinary personal influ- 
ence had unusual attractions for him,^ although his 

» See Wendt, De Philosophia 
Cyrenaica, Gott. 1841. 

« The accounts of ancient 
and the views of modem 
writers on the life of Aristip- 
pus are found in detail in 
H, V, Stein's De Philosophia 
Cyrenaica, Part, prior, de vita 
Aristippi (Gott. 1855), which 
ought to have proceeded some- 
what more sceptically. There 
too are references to the earlier 

• All authorities without ex- 
ception state this. His father 
is called Aritadas by Smd, *Ap(- 

* ^schin. in JHog. ii. 65, says 
that he came to Athens Kar^ 
k\4os 2a>icpdrovSy and Plut. 
Curios. 2, p. 516, gives full 
particulars how at the Olympic 
games he heard of Socrates and 

his teaching from Ischomachus, 
and was at once so taken by it 
that he did not rest till he had 
made his acquaintance. See 
IHog, ii. 78 ; 80. 

* Aristippus is not only uni- 
versally described as a follower 
of Socrates {Diay. ii. 47 ; 74 ; 
80 ; Straho, xvii. 8, 22, p. 837 ; 
Ihu. Pr. Ev. xiv. 18, 31 ; Stein., 
p. 26), but he also regarded 
himself as. such, and paid a 
tribute of most genuine respect 
to his teacher. According to 
Dioff. ii. 76, he prayed that he 
might die like Socrates. Ibid. 
71, he says that if anything 
good can be truly repeated of 
himself, he owes it to Socrates, 
and Ariit. Rhet. ii. 23 ; 1398, 
b, 29, says, *Api<rriinros xpbs 
Il\drooya i'irayye\TiKiiirtp6y ti 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



character was too weak to endure in the last trial.* 
From Cyrene, his luxurious home, which at that time 
was at the height of its wealth and power,' he had 
brought habits far removed from the simplicity and 
abstemiousness of Socrates.' Perhaps he had been 
already touched by those Sophistical influences which 
may be observed in his subsequent career.* At any 
rate we may assume that he had attained to a certain 

TO*', \iyotv rhy ^Kpdrrir (which 
StemhaHy Plat. Leben, 303, 17, 
contrary to the natural sense, 
refers to Plato's too sanguine 
expectations of the younger 
Dionysins). "We also see from 
Xen, Mem. 1. 2, ill. S, that he 
was on an intimate footing 
with Socrates; and Plato in 
blaming him, Phaedo, 59, 0., 
for being absent from the circle 
of friends who met on the day 
of Socrates' death, evidently 
reckons him as belonging to 
this circle. Conf. ^ein., p. 
25, who also, pp. 50 and 74, 
groups together the authorities 
respecting Aristippus' relations 
to the pupils of Socrates. 

* PlatOy 1. c, who however 
only says that Aristippus and 
Gleombrotus had been in 
^gina; that on this fertile 
island they caroused on the 
day of their master's death, as 
Demetr. de Elocut. 288, asserts, 
is barely possible. The accu- 
racy of Plato's statement is 
incUsputable, notwithstanding 
Diog. iii. 56 ; ii. 65 ; but 
whether Aristippus left Athens 
from excessive regard for his 
own safety, or whether his 
weakness led him to wish to 

escape the painful interval 
pending the death of Socrates, 
cannot be ascertained. 

* See Thrige, Res Cyrenen- 
sium, 191. 

* This may be gathered from 
Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 1, in addition 
to the proof afforded by his 
later conduct. That Aristippus 
belonged to a wealthy family 
would seem to be estabUshecl 
by his whole mode of living, 
and by the journey which he 
undertook to Athens. 

* We might have imagined 
that a city so rich and culti- 
vated as Cyrene (on this point 
see Tkriffe, L c, p. 340, 364), 
would not have been neglected 
by the Sophists, even if there 
were no express evidence to 
prove it. It is, however, known 
from Plato, Theaetet. 161, B.; 
162, A., that the celebrated 
mathematician, Theodorus of 
Cyrene, was a friend of Pro- 
ts^oras, and the principles of 
Protogoras are also afterwards 
met with in Aristippus. From 
the zeal with whidi Aristippus 
followed Socrates it may be 
further conjectured that the 
study of philosophy was to him 
no new thing. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



maturity of thought when he first became acquainted 
with Socrates.^ It is, therefore, no cause for wonder 
that this talented young man * met his teacher with 
a considerable amount of independence,^ not on the 
whole so blindly following him as to sacrifice his own 
peculiarities. He is even said to have come forward 
as a teacher before the death of Socrates ; * that he 
did so afterwards is a better established fact, and 
also that, contrary to the principles of his greatest 
friend, but quite in harmony with the practice usual 
among the Sophists, he required payment for his 
instruction.* In yet another point he followed the 


' The chronology of his life 
is very uncertain. Neither the 
time of his birth nor of his 
death is known to us. Accor- 
ding to DiodoruSf xv. 76, he 
was living in 366 B.C., and 
Pha. Dio. 19, tells us that he 
met Plato on his third visit to 
Sicily, which is placed in 361 
B.C. But Diodorus probably 
derived from Dionysius his 
anecdote about the interview 
with Plato. Its accuracy can- 
not therefore be relied upon ; 
and as we are ignorant how old 
Aristippus was at the time, 
these accounts are anything 
but satisfactory. According 
to Diog. ii. 83, however, it 
would appear, he was older by 
several years than JSschines ; 
and it would also appear, from 
what has been said p. 337, 
4, that at the time he followed 
Socrates he was independent 
in his civil relations, and fur- 
ther that he was connected 
with him for several years. 

' This is what he appears to 

have been from all that is 
known. See Stein., p. 29. 

* See Xen. Mem. ii. 1 ; iii. 8. 

* According to Diog, ii. 80, 
Socrates blamed him for taking 
pay for his instruction. How 
little dependence can be placed 
upon this story will be seen 
from the fact that Aristippus 
says, in his reply, that Socrates 
did the same, only taking less. 
Another passage, Diog, ii. 65, 
seems to imply^on the authority 
of Phanias, that Aristippus 
offered to give Socrates some 
of the money he had gained in 
this way. Perhaps, however, 
all that Phanias said was, that 
Aristippus had taken pay, and 
offered it to his teacher, with- 
out however bringing the two 
facts into closer temporal con- 

* Phanias in Diog, ii. 65; 
Ibid. 72 ; 74 ; 80, where it is 
also stated in what way he de- 
fended this conduct. Alexis in 
Athen, xii. 544, e ; Plut. Edu. 
Pu. 7, p. 4 ; Stob, Bxo. e Floril. 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 




example of the Sophists^ by passing a great portion 
of his life in various places without any fixed abode.* 

Joan. Damasc. ii. 13, 146 (that 
Aristippus is meant here ap- 
pears from 146 ; conf. Diog. ii. 
68). Also Xen. Mem. i. 2, 60, 
appears to have an eye on him. 
The amount of these fees is 
estimated at 1000 drachmae by 
Plutarch, at 600 by Diog, 72. 

^ He says of himself in Xen, 
Mem. ii. 1, 13 : oW ^IsToxir^toaf 
ifMvrhr KaraK\€Ut, &XXd ^4vos 
varraxov €lfxl. In Pita. Virt. 
Doc. p. 2, p. 439, some one asks 
him: iravraxov trh 2pa cT; to 
which he replies with a bad 
joke. He is mentioned by later 
writers, often no doubt bad 
authorities, as having been in 
different places: in Megara, 
where he met with -ZEschines 
(Dioff. ii. 62; conf. Ep. Socr. 
29) : in Asia Minor, where he 
was imprisoned by the Persians, 
(Dioff. ii. 79) : in Corinth, 
where he revelled with Lais 
(Hermesianaz in Ath. xiii. 599, 
b ; Dioff, ii. 71) : in -Slgina, 
where he not only lived for a 
time after the death of So- 
crates, but where, according to 
Athen. xiii. 588, e ; conf. xii. 
644, d, he every year took up 
his residence in company with 
Lais: and at Scillus, where 
Xenophon read to him his Me- 
morabilia, Ep. Socr. 18. Much 
in particular is told of his stay 
at the court of Syracuse, of his 
hostile encounter with Plato, 
and of many other adventures, 
which he there experienced. 
But in these notices there is 
great confusion, since at one 

time the elder Dionysius, at 
another the younger Dionysins, 
at another simply Dionysius, is 
spoken of. Conf. Stein., p. 57. 
It is asserted by the Scholiast 
on I/ucian, Men. 13, that Aris- 
tippus was at Syracuse under 
the elder Dionysius. This 
statement is borne out by 
Hegesander in Athen. xii. 644, 
c ; for the Antiphon there men- 
tioned was (according to Plut. 
De Adulat. 27, p. 68) executed 
by command of the elder 
Dionysius. The anecdote of 
his shipwreck in Galen. Ex- 
hort, c, 5, must be referred to 
the same time. It can only 
belong to his first visit to 
Sicily, but by Vitrv/v. vi. Prae- 
fat. was transferred to the 
island of Rhodes. On this 
point see Stein. 61. On the 
other hand, Plvi. Dio. 19, 
brings him into contact with 
Plato on Plato's third journey 
to Sicily, 361 B.C., in the time 
of the younger Dionysius. The 
notices in Athen. xi. 507, b; 
IHoff, ii. 66-69, 73, 75, 77-82, 
are indefinite, although the 
stories there told harmonise 
better with the court of the 
younger Dionysius than with 
that of his father. Nothing 
can however be laid down with 
certainty respecting the visits 
of Aristippus to Sicily. That 
he visited Sicily may be be- 
lieved on tradition. That he 
there met Plato is not impos- 
sible, though it is also possible 
that the account of this meet- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Subsequently he appears to have returned to his 
native city, and to have taken up his permanent 
residence there. ^ Here it is that we first hear of his 
family and his Schod.^ The heiress to his principles 
was a daughter, (^et^ a lady of sufficient education 
to instruct her son,' the younger Aristippus,* in his 


ing was invented in order to 
bring out the contrast between 
both philosophers. In fact, 
Plato's journeys to Sicily were 
a favourite topic for later anec- 
dote mongers. But any one of 
the above stories, taken by 
itself alone, must be accepted 
with caution; nor is it even 
certain that he visited both 
the Dionysiuses. When the 
younger one came to the throne 
(368 B.C.) he was at least 60 
years of age, and yet most of 
the stories which are told ap- 
pear to have reference to him. 
On the other hand, Aristippus 
there appears in a character 
better suited to his years of 
travel than to his later years. 
The supposed accidents of 
meeting between Aristippus 
and Plato probably went the 
round as anecdotes, without 
any attention having been paid 
to their historical connection ; 
and when this was done by 
subsequent biographers, it be- 
came impossible to find out 
what was fact. 

* Whether this stay was 
shortened by frequent travels, 
whether Aristippus died in 
Cyrene or elsewhere, and how 
long he lived, are points un- 
known. For the journey to 
Sicily in 361 B.C. is, as we 

have seen, uncertain. The 
twenty-ninth letter, which So- 
crates is supposed to have 
addressed to Ids daughter from 
Lipara after his return, and 
in expectation of death, is 
valueless as a historical testi- 
mony, nor does it even render 
the existence of a correspon- 
ding tradition probable; and 
the hypothesis based on Diog. 
ii. 62, that Aristippus flourished 
at Athens in 356 has been with 
justice refuted by Stein., p. 82. 
Steinhart, Plat. Leben, 305, 33, 
proposes to read 'Api<rror4\ri for 
^AplffrnriFov in IHog. ii. 62, but 
the chronology is against this 
correction. "Zir^iffninrov would 
be better. 

* Generally called Cyrenaics, 
more rarely Hedonists, as in 
Athen, vii. 312, f ; xiii. 588, a. 

* Who was thence called /nij- 

* Straho, xvii. 3, 22, p. 837 ; 
Clemens, Strom, iv. 523, A. ; 
Mis, Pr. Ev. xiv. 18, 32 ; Theod, 
Cur. Gr. Aff. xi. 1 ; IHog. ii. 
72, 84, 86; Suid. 'Apiarnnros ; 
Themigt, Or. ^xi. 244. If, 
therefore, jElian, H. Anim. iii. 
40, calls Arete the sister of 
Aristippus, it must be through 
an oversight. Besides this 
daughter he is said to have had 
ano&er son, whom he did not 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




grandfather's philosophy. Besides this daughter, 
iEthiops and Antipater are also mentioned as pupils 
of the elder Aristippus.* His grandson, the younger 
Aristippus, is said to have instructed Theodoras, 
called the Atheist ;* the firuits of Antipater's teaching* 

own, Diog. 81 ; ^oh, Floril. 76, 
14. Most likely this was only 
the child of an Irtupa, although 
Stobsens calls his mother a 

* Diog, ii. 86. We know 
further from Oic, Tusc. v. 38, 
112, that Antipater bore the 
loss of sight with resignation. 
Cicero tells a somewluit tame 

* Biog, 86. This Theodoras 
appears to have belonged to 
the Optimates, who were driven 
from Cyrene in the party 
quarrels immediately after the 
death of Alexander, and took 
refuge with the Egyptian sove- 
reigns. Thrige, Ees. Cyren. 
206. We hear of him as an 
exile in the last years of the 
fourth century (^Plut. Be Exil. 
16, p. 606 ; IHog. 103 ; PMlo, 
Qu. Omn. Pr. Lib. 884, C), in 
Greece, and particularly at 
Athens (IHog, ii. 100, 116 ; iv. 
62 ; vi. 97), where a friend of 
Ptolemy's, Demetrius Phaler- 
eus, helped him, between 316 
and 306 B.C., and subsequently 
at the court of Ptolemy, on 
whose behalf he undertook an 
embassy to Lysimachus (IHog. 
102; Cic, Tusc. i. 43, 102; 
Valer. vi. 2, 3 ; Philoy 1. c, 
Plvt, An. Vittos. 3, p. 499; 
Stob, Floril. 2, 33). At last he 
returned to his own country, 
and was there held in great 
honour by Magus, the Egyptian 

governor, Diifg, 103. What 
made him particularly notori- 
ous was his atheism. Indicted 
on this account at Athens, he 
was rescued by Demetrius, bat 
obliged to leave the city (JHog. 
101 ; Philo.). The assertion 
of Amphicrates (in JHog. and 
Athen, xiiL 611, a), that he was 
put to death by a hemlock- 
draught, is contradictory to all 
we know of him. According 
to Antisth. in Biog, 98, he was 
a pupil not only of Aristippus 
the younger, but also of Anni- 
ceris and of the dialectician 
Dionysius. It is however diffi- 
cult to see how he can have 
been younger than Annicerls. 
Suid. 0€o8. makes Zeno, Pyrrho, 
and Bryso (see p. 255, 1) his tea- 
chers, the first one probably 
with reason, the two others 
quite by mistake. Under 
"Xd^Kpar. he makes him a pupil 
of Socrates, at the same time 
confounding him with a mathe- 
matician from Cyrene of the 
same name (see p. 338, 4), who 
is known to us through Plato. 
In Diog. ii. 102, iv. 52, he is 
called a Sophist, i. e., one who 
took pay for his instruction. 

' According to JMog. 86^ 
through Epitimides of Cyrene 
and his pupil Paraebates, the 
latter of whom is said to have 
studied under Aristippus. Suid, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



were( Hegesiag> ands.Ai miceri8^ ?y These three men 
established separate branches of the Cyrenaic School, 
which bore their respective names,* Amongst the 
pupils of Theodonis were Bio the Borysthenite,^ and 
perhaps EiLemerus, the well-known Greek rationalist,* 

* A cotemporary of Ptolemy 
Lagi, who is said to have pro- 
hibited him from lecturing, 
because he described the ills 
of life so graphically that many 
were led to commit suicide. 
a<?. Tusc. i. 34, 83 ; Valer,Maaj. 
viii. 9, 3; Plut Am. ProL 6, 
p. 497. Suicide was also the 
subject of his book *Airoicap- 
rtp&p, do. L c. Hence his 
name fluffiBdyaroSf Diog. 86, 
Suid, *Ap(<rr. 

* Probably also under Ptole- 
my I., although Suidas, *\vvik.^ 
places him in the time of Alex- 
ander. Conf . Antisth. in Diog, 
ii. 88. 

* For the 6eo8«6pciot and their 
teaching see Diog. 97; Calli- 
machus in Athen. vl. 252, c ; for 
the 'Hyriffuucoi, Diog. 93 ; for the 
*AyviK4p§toit ibid. 96; StrdbOf 
xvii. 3, 22, p. 837; Clemens^ 
Strom, ii. 417, B. ; Swid. *AvvIk. 
Strabo calls Anntceris 6 ^ok&v 
ivcofopO&ffcu r^v KvfniyouK^v a2p€- 
fftif Ktti Topayceytiv ain' avrris r^v 
'Ayvuctpeiay. To the Annicereans 
belonged Posidonius the pupil, 
and probably also Nicoteles, the 
brother of Anniceris. Suid. 1. c 

* This individual lived at 
Athens and other places (Diog. 
iv. 46, 49, 53; iL 135). Accord- 
ing to Diog. iv. 10, where, how- 
ever, the Borysthenite appears 
to be meant, he was acquainted 
with Xenocrates. In Diog. iv. 
46, 54, ii. 35 ; Athm. iv. 162, d, 

he appears as a cotemporary of 
Menedemus (see p. 281), and 
the Stoic Persseus (ZeUor^t 
Stoics, &c.). He appears, there- 
fore, to have lived to the middle 
of the third century. Accord- 
ing to Diog. iv. 51, he left the 
Academy, which he first fre- 
quented, and joined the Cynics 
(which reads in our text of 
Diogenes as if he had deserted 
the Academician Crates, in 
order to become a Cynic, but 
this is not possible in point of 
time ; perhaps the original 
text meant that by the agency 
of Crates he was brought over 
from the Academy to Cynicism). 
He then turned to Theodore, 
and at last to Theophrastus, 
Diog. iv. 151. His free thought 
and the instability of his moral 
principles {Diog. iv. 49, 53) 
recall the School of Theodore, 
in which Numenius in Ihu. Pr. 
Bv. xiv. 6, 5, actually places him. 
In other respects he is rather a 
literary wit than a philosopher. 
See Diog. iv. 46-57, various 
sayingsof his in Pluta/roh. 

* Eijpierus of Messene, ac- 
cording to the most numerous 
and approved authorities ; ac- 
cording to others, of Agri- 
gentum, Cos, or Tegea (see 
aieroka, De Euhemero. Kd- 
nigsbg. 1869, p. 27), is often 
mentioned in connection with 
Theodorus, Diagoras, and other 
Atheists {Sieroka, 19, 31). The 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap, while amongst his contemporaries was Aristotle of 

^^- Cyrene.» 

B. Teach- The Cyrenaic teaching, the leading traits of which 

*^^^ midoubtedly belong to Aristippus,* like the Cynic, 






notion that Theodore was his 
teacher rests solely on hypo- 
thesis. For we have no busi- 
ness to write? Eu^/itpov in Diog, 
ii. 97 instead of 'Eiri'^vpov (yriih 
Nietzsche, Bhein. Mns. N. F. 
zzY. 231). Epicurus derived 
his views respecting the Gods 
mostly from Theodoras' trea- 
tise vcpl BtSnf, A connection' 
with the Cyrenaic School is 
not in itself probable, since 
this was the only School which 
at that time busied itself with 
combating the popular belief. 
Doubtless, too, that tame reso- 
lution of the myths into history, 
for which Euemerus is known, 
isalso quite after their taste ; in- 
deed, the Cynics who, together 
with the Cyrenaics, were at 
that time the representatives 
of free thought, did not resort 
\ to natural explanations, but to 
^ allegory . In point of time 
Euemerus may easily have 
been a pupil of Theodoras. He 
lived under the Macedonian 
yCassander (311 to 298 B.C.), 
^the latter having sent him on 
that journey on which he 
visited the fabulous island of 
Eanchaea . and pretended to 
have dfscovered in a temple 
there the history of the Gk)ds, 
I ^ the account of which is given 
in his 2ep& hvvypa^. Diodor. 
in Mm, Pr. Ev. ii. 2, 55 ; Phit, 
De Is. 23, p. 360. Copious 
extracts i^om this work are 
found in Diodorus,v. 41-46, and 
fragments of the translation 

undertaken by Ennius, or of a 
revision of this translation in 
Lactimt, Inst. i. 11, 13 (see 
Vahlen^ Ennian. Poes. Beliq., 
p. xciii. f) ; 17, 22, 1. c. 169. 
Shorter notices of the con- 
tents of his treatise in Cic. 
N. D. i. 42, 119, followed by 
Minuo, Fel. Octav. 21, 2 ; also 
in StrahOy ii. 3, 5 ; 4, 2 ; p. 102, 
104; vii. 3, 6, p. 299; Plut. 
1. c. y Athen. xiv. 658, e ; Seast, 
Math. ix. 171, 34 ; An^. C. D. 
vii. 26 ; Ep. 18 ; Serm. 273, 3 ; 
EUggin. Poet. Astron. ii. 12, 13, 
42, D. See also SkeroJta and 
Steinhart, Allg. Encykl. v. 
Ersch. d. Gr. i. vol. 39, 60; 
Mailer, Frag. Hist. Crraec ii. 

* According to IHog. ii. 113, 
president of a philosophical 
School in the time of Stilpo, 
apparently at Athens. Dio- 
genes there calls him KopvipaX" 
k6s, ^lian, however, V. H. 
X. 3, in recording a saying of 
his, calls him Kvprivaios, He is 
probably the Cyrenaic, who, 
according to IHog, v. 35, wrote 
a treatise ircp) ironiriK&v. A say- 
ing in Stob. Floril. 63, 32, be- 
longs to him according to some 
MSS., but to Aristippus accord- 
ing to Cod. B. 

* The thing is not altogether 
undisputed. Mts. Pr. Ev. xiv. 
18, 31, f, says of the elder 
Aristippus, without doubt on 
the authority of Aristocles : 

irtpX r4\ovs Zi€\4^aT0, BwdfMi Hh 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



takes up the pracMca l side_ of the philosophy of So- 
crates. Of Aristippus too, and his pupils, it was 


rris eb^aufiovias rijv vit6<rraffiv 
l^Ktyty iv rfiovais Ktiadou. htl 
yhp \6yovs irtpl 17801/^5 icoiovfjii- 
vovs els (nro^lav IJy* rohs vpotriSy- 
TOj avr^ roi \4yeiv reXos elvai 
rh ri?i4as Qv : and of the younger 
one, hs Koi (Tcupm oipiaaro r4\os 
tlpM rh ^5cW C^Vf rjSovijv imdr- 
ray rify Karh. kIvtioiv. This 
testimony appears to be further 
corroborated by the fact that 
Aristotle, in refuting the doc- 
trine of pleasure, Eth. x. 2, 
does not mention Aristippus, 
but Eudoxus, as its representa- 
tive. To this must be added 
what Sosicrates and others, 
according to Diog. 84, main- 
tained, that Aristippus left no 
writings ; which would at least 
point to a lower development 
of his teaching. IHog. ii. 64 
does not quite prove so much : 
irdvray fifurui r&y "SoiKpariKay 
Jiia\6yuv irayalrios itXridels elvai 
JioKfirohs n\drwyoif Hefo^vvros, 
*Ayrur64yovs, AiVx^i'ow : for, ac- 
cording to 84 in our text, 
PansBtius is quoted as an au- 
thority for a number of dia- 
logues of Aristippus. It may 
therefore be asked with Bran- 
diSf ii. a, 92, whether in 64, 
Aristippus' name has not been 
omitted by some oversight ; on 
the other hand, AiarpiPal were 
hardly dialogues : cf . Susemihl, 
Rhein. Mus. N. F. xxvi. 338. 
For these reasons Bitter, ii. 93, 
supposes that the views of 
Aristippus were not reduced to 
a connected form till a later 
time. The assertion of Sosi- 
crates however appears to be 
without foundation; for Dio- 

genes gives two lists of the 
works of Aristippus, which 
agree in the main, and one of 
which was acknowledged by 
Sotion and Panaetius. Theo- 
pompus knew of writings of 
his, for according to AtTien. xi. 
508, c, he accused Plato of 
plagiarism from the diatribes 
of Aristippus. Allowing then 
that subsequent additions were 
made to the writings of Aris- 
tippus, it cannot be supposed 
that the whole collection is 
spurious. Perhaps in ancient 
times, and in Greece proper, 
these writings were less diffused 
than those of the other fol- 
lowers of Socrates. This fact 
may easily be explained, sup> 
posing the greater part of them 
not to have been written till 
Aristippus had returned to his 
native country. It may also be 
the reason why Aristotle never 
mentions Aristippus; perhaps 
he omitted him because he in- 
cluded him among the Sophists, 
Metaph. iii. 2, 996, a, 32. The 
remarks of Eusebius can only 
be true in one sense, viz., that 
the elder Aristippus does not 
make use of the expression 
r4\os, and does not put his sen- 
tences in the form which sub- 
sequently prevailed in the 
Schools. That he recommended 
pleasure, that he declared it to 
be a good in the most decided 
manner, that thus the leading 
features of the Cyrenaic teach- 
ing are due to him, cannot be 
doubted, taking into account 
the numerous witnesses which 
affirm it, nor would the unity 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap, asserted, as well as of the Cynics, that they neglected 
^^' questions touching natu re and logic, giving to the 

{I) Their gtudv of-^tfiicsHexclusive value. Nor is this assertion 

general '' Kr 

potiUtni. disproved by the fjBUjt that they were themselves un- 
able to keep clear of theory, the sole object of their 
teaching being to establish ethics, and indeed their 
"^N^own exclusive pursuit of ethics.* The end to be secured 
by philosophy is the happiness of mankind. On this 
point Aristippus and Antist henes agree. Antist benes, ' 


of his School be otherwise 
comprehensible. Doubtless 

Plato wrote the Philebus with 
an eye to this philosopher, and 
Speusippus had written on 
ibdstippus, Biog. iv. 5. 

■ Biog. ii. 92 : h^ie^wno tk 

8i^ T^i' ^vxpfnerltuf fyrrovro. Mc- 
Kiarfpos 8^ . . . koI KXcir^fiaxos 
. . . ^meXv adrovs tLjcpitteTa iryci- 
irtfcu 7^ re ^wriKhv fiiftos jral t^ 
ZuLK9KTtK6¥, B^vaffBaiyiiptihdytty 
KoX Ztiei^amovlas itcrhs cTycu Koi 
rhw wtpi. Baifdrov p6fioy im^^tvyttw 
T^ ircpi ityoBmw koH kokw \Ayop 
4Kfu/Aaei^6ra, Sext, Math. vii. 
11 : Zottowri Hik Kterd riras Ktd ot 
kwh riji Kvp^vi|f ft6wo¥ heird(€<r$at 
rh iidmhr fitpos irapmrifiircip Bk rh 
^wruch¥ teal rh KoyiKhv &s finBhv 
Wf^ rh €hlkufi6ims fiiovp ew€p- 
79vrra. Pint, in JBue. Pr. Ev. i. 
8, 9 : 'Aplariwros 6 Kvpfuwauts 

8^ Hr ikynB6im^ r^v 8^ AWiiP 
AMTioXirytay vepi7p(i^ct, fi6pop 
w^Aifior cImu X^yvp rh (tircur* 
*Otti rot 4v fjiwydpotei iuuc6p r' 
ty9t$6p Tc T^TMCToi, which is also 
told of Socrates and Diogenes. 
Aiist. Met. ii. 2, 996, a, 32: 
Jtrrt 8i^ ravTO rmr eo^^termp 

riv€s otov 'AplffTiinFOS irpO€in|X«£- 
KiCop ouriLs [t^t fiadJifMrucia 
iirteriifAas'] iv /a^p yiip reus 6kKais 
Tcxi^ats, Kol reus fiayocdcois, olop 
rtKropiiep Koi (ncvriicp, BiSri 
fi4\riov fj X^^P^^ \4y€<rB€U irdpra, 
riis 8i fjuiBiffMrtHas ohBeva irotc7<r- 
Ban. x6yop ircpl ayaB&p koX jccurwr. 
The same in Alex, on the pas- 
sage Schol. in Arigt. 609, b, 1 ; 
P». Alex, on Met. ziii. 3 ; 1078» 
a, 33 ; Ibid. 817, a, 11 ; Syriam 
in Metaph. Arist. T. V. 844, b, 
6; 889, b, 19. Compare the 
language of Aristippus in Diog,. 
ii. 71, 79 ; Plvt. Ed. Pr. 10, 7. 

* According to the sense in 
which it is understood, it is 
equally true to say that they 
set logic aside and that they 
made use of it. See p. 347, 2. 
Of what was afterwards called 
logic, they appropriated just as 
much as was necessary for their 
theory of knowledge, but they 
assigned no independent value 
to it, nor did they extend their 
study of it beyond what was 
wanted for their purposes. 
Conf. iS^ Ep. 89, 12: Qjrren- 
aici naturalia cum rationsJibus 
sustulemnt et contenti fuerunt 
moralibus, sed hi quoque, quae 
removenti aliter inducunt. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



however, knows of no happiness which does not im- Chap. 

• XIV 
mediately coincide with virtue, and thus makes virtue L_ 

! the only object in life. Aristippus, on the other hand, 
considers only enjoyment an end in itself, and only 
pleasure an unconditional good,* regarding everything 
else as good and desirable only in as far as it is a 
means to enjoyment.* Both Schools therefore at the 
very commencement diverge in opposite directions, 
their divergence, however, not preventing their subse- 

\ quent approach to a greater extent than might seem 

' at first sight to be possible, 

' The groimd thus occupied was worked out by (2) FoeU A i 
Aristippus and his pupils as follows,^ Perceptions, J^* oj;>cf ( 

* Aristippus in Xen, Mem. ii. 
1) 9 : ifiavrhv roivw rdrrfo els 
robs $ov\ofi4vos f p^rd re Koi 
ffiurra fiioreieiv. Cic. Acad. iv. 
42, 131 : alii volnptatem sum- 
mam bonum esse voluerunt: 
quorum princeps Aristippus. 
IHd. Fin. ii. 6, 18; 13, 39; 
Diog, 87: ifiov^v . . , %v koX 
r4\os elvai^ 88 : ri ij^ovii Jit* abr^v 
alper^ ical h.yaB6v. Athen. xii. 
644, a : [^Aplffrimros'] ivo^t^dfievos 
T^y il3urd$€iav ravrriy r4\os thai 
$(p7i KoH iv ain'p r^y evhcunovlav 
fiefi^Sitreai. Euseb. 1. c. p. 296, 

I. The same view is mentioned 
and attacked by Plato, Grorg. 
491, E. ; Rep. vi. 605, B. (See 
above p. 312, 1), and Philebus, 

II, B., where it is thus des- 
cribed : ^iKrifios fjiky roiyuv iyoBhv 
elvtd <tniffi rh x<^p€iy ira<rt (<&ois 
Kol r^v ri^opiiy iced rip^nf koX ^ffa 
rov y4uovs iffrl ro6rov (r^fupuvtif 
IHd. 66, D. : rayaehp irieero 
4lfup ii^oy^y cTrou iraffap iced ircu^- 
Tf^^. That Plato bad Aristip- 

pus in mind wiU be presently 
shown in respect of the Phile- 
bus, and it is therewith proved 
for the Republic, which refers 
to the Philebus. 

• Biog. ii. 91 : t^v ipp6vri(riy 
iyaOhv jm^v eJvai \4yov<riVy oh Si* 
laurel' ih alper^pf itWh 8i^ rh i^ 
ovT^s T9ptyiv6fuifa. 92 : koX rhp 
wKovrov Zh woirrriKhv ^5ov^s cTyoi, 
ob 8i' ct&rhy tdptrhv 6vTa, Oo, 
Off. iii. 33, 116 : Cyrenaici at- 
que Annicerei philosophi nom- 
inati omne bonum in voluptat^ 
posuerunt ; virtutemque censu- 
erunt ob eam rem esse laudan- 
dam, quod efficiens esset vol- 
uptatis. To this sentence of 
Aristippus, Wendt, Phil. Cyr. 
28, and Ast refer the passage of 
the Phaedo, 68, B., but without 
reason. It refers to common 
unphilosophical virtue. 

• The Cyrenaios divided their 
ethics into five parts. Sext. 
Math. vii. 11 : iccJtoi ircpirp^ 
veffBai to6tovs fvtoi vevoyJuaurw 

of know- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





being feelings of a change within ourselves, do not 
supply us with the least information as to things in 
themselves. We may be indeed conscious of having 
a sensation of sweetness, whiteness, and so forth ; 
but whether the object which causes the sensation is 
sweet, or white, is unknown to us. One and the same 
thing often produces an entirely different effect upon 
different persons. How then can we be sure, that in 
any given case, whether owing to the nature of our 
organism or to the circumstances under which we 
receive the impression, things do not appear to us 
entirely different from what they are in themselves ? 
1 Knowledge, therefore, is limited to our own feelings ; 
I as to these we are never mistaken ; but of things in 
f themselves we know absolutely liothing.^ Just as 

i^ &v r^ ilBiKhif ^uupovffiy th re 
rhy Ttpl rav olperQy icot ^wkt&v 
r&KOV KciX €tj rhv irepl rSiv vadav 
Kol fhi fit rhv xfpl r&v irpd^ecov 
ical ff8i} rhv ircpi 7uv airiaVy Kai 
rf\€VTaiop «« rhy vtpl rS>v iriff- 
rtwv iv TotJroij yiip 6 irepl curiuv 
r6iroSf(l>aa\y, in rod ^wtikov ix^povs 
ir^X"^*'^* ^ ^* '*'*P^ ir£irr€«j' iK 
rod XocyiKov. Sen. Ep. 89, 12 
(according to what has been 
said, p. 346, 2) : in quinque enim 
partes moralia dividunt, ut una 
sit de fugiendis et expetendis, 
altera de adfectibus, tertia de 
actionibus, qnarta de causis, 
quinta de argumentis: causae 
rerum ex natuiali parte sunt, 
argmuenta ex rationali, acti- 
ones ex morali. We cannot, 
however, tie our faith to this 
account, not knowing how the 
subject was divided among 
these several parts, nor how old 

and universal the division is. 
That it was not made by Aris- 
tippus may be gathered from 
the statements as to his wri- 
tings. In the division irepl »/(r- 
r€(ov probably the theory of 
knowledge was treated, and in 
the preceding one the theory of 

» do, Acad. ii. 46, 143 : alind 
judicium Protagoras est, qui 
putet id cuique rerum esse, quod 
cuique videatur: aliud Cyren- 
aicorum, qui praeter permo- 
tiones intimas nihil putant esse 
judicii. Ibid. 7, 20 : de tactu, 
et eo quidem, quem philosophi 
interiorem vocant, aut doloris 
aut voluptatis, in quo Cyren- 
aici solo putant veri esse judi- 
cium. Plut. adv. Col. 24, 2, p. 
1120: [pi KvpuvoOKoX] rk irdiii 
Kcd rks ipayraoias 4v avro7s ri64v' 
res oifK ^ovro r^v wwh roihotw 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



little do we know of the feelings of other people. 
There may be common names, but there are no com- 


wlffriv etvai hiapKTj vphs tAs ^ip 
ruv irpoByfidruy KarajBcjBaid&o-cis, 
hKK* &air€p iv troXiopKiq, r&v iKrhs 
itTTOtrrdvres tis tA irddrj KoreKKticav 
adrobs. rh tpaivercu ri04fji.(yoi, 
rh 8* iarrl ju^ irpoffavo<paiv6fi€yoi 
ircplrwv iicrhs . . . yXvKcdveffBai 
y^ \4yowri Kal iriKpalv€<rdai Koi 
<j>corl((a6ai irol VKorovffBai rav 
iraJdwv roinbiv iKdffrov ttjv iv4pytiav 
oiKfiav iy avr^ Koi &.ir€pt(nraffrov 
I^X^^'^os • €i 8i yXvKh rh fi4Ai Koi 
vucphs & BaXKhs k.t.X. inrh iroXKuv 
iufTifjMprvpfiaBai koL dripluv koX 
TTpayiidray icol Mp^iraVf rav iikv 
^virx*f^''^v6vT0iv [add t^ ju^y] rS»v 
^h irpo<n€fi4ifav r^iv OdWiapf Ka\ 
iiroKaofXfvav vvh t^s X^<^C^^> '^^ 
Kara^vxoiJL^ifoou vwh otvov^ Kcd irphs 
IjKioy iLfJL^Kvarr6in(av koL viiKtiap 
fi\€7r6vra>v. tiBev iixfieyovtra rois 
irddcffiv 71 S($|a hartipfi rh &va- 
fidprrtrov iK^aivovtra 8^ koX 
iroKvirpayfiovovaa r^ Kplveiy K<d 
iLTTOfpaiveffBai irepl ray iKrhs, avr4\v 
Tf -KoKKdKis rapdffffti Koi fidxtrai 
irphs ir4povs Airb r&v ahrS»v ivav- 
rla rrddri koX iia4>6povs (pavrcurias 
Kofifidvovras. Seait. Math. vii. 
191, who gives the most detailed 
account, but probably to a great 
extent in his own language: 
ipaalv abv ol KvprivaiKol Kpirripia 
€hcu tA irdOij koI fxSva KaraXaiJL- 
fidvftrBai koL &yp€vara r^yxwciVj 
rwv 86 veiroiTiKSrav rh itdOri firi^^v 
€Jv€u Kara\rj7nhv jU7}8c &8iat^ev- 
orov ' in yhp \€VKcuv6fi(6af 
<l>cur\, K(d y\vKa(6fjL€$af Jiwarhy 
\iy€iv i^ia^eiffras . . . 9rt 84 
rh 4fiiroiijriKhv rod vddovs \€vk6u 
iari fj y\vK6 iariVj ohx ^^^^ ''"' 
laro<f>cdveff6ai. cixhs ydp icrri Koi 
^h /xij \fVKOv riva KevKamtKWS 
9Mr€$ri¥cu icoi ^h yAi y\vK4os 

yXvKayBrjvai, just as a diseased 
eye or a mad brain always sees 
things different from what they 
are. oSru kolL ^fias thXoy<lyrar6v 
iffri TKtov rwv oiKtiay iroOwv 
firi^hy \(mfidv(W ^vvoutOm. If, 
therefore, we understand by 
^aLv6fi€va individual impressions 
(irdOTi), it must be said vdyra 
tA <f>aiv6fifva &\ri$7i Kcd Kara- 
KtiTfrd, If, on the contrary, every 
name means the thing by which 
the impression is produced, all 
<pcuv6fji€va are false and cannot 
be known. Strictly speaking, 
fiSvov rh irdBos rifiw i<rri ipaipS- 
/xcvotr rh 8' ixrhs Koi rod irdBovi 
irotTiriKhv rdxct l^fy iariv hv ov 
tpaivSiMevoy 84 rifuv. Kal raOrrji 
irepl ii\v rh vdBti rd yc olK€ia 
vdvrts ifffily &irXai/cis, ircpt 84 rh 
iierhs htoKtiiievov vdvns vXavdi- 
/Lic9a* KOLKuva fi4v iari KaraXriTrriLf 
rovro 84 hcardXrivroVf rrjs ^vxv^ 
irdvv affdfvovs KoSeardoVTis wphs 
Zidyveofftv ahrov vaph robs rdirovs^ 
irapk rh Zuurriifiara, iraph rhs 
Kip'hffuSj irapk ras fA€ra$oXhs, iropA 
iXXai irafiirXri$€7s curias. See 
Pyrrh. i. 215 ; Dioff. ii. 92 : rd 
T6 Trddij KaraXijTrrhj iXfrfov oiw 
avrA, oIk i4>' S»v ylverai. Ihid. 
93: rhs ahrdiifftts fi^i tcdvror^ 
kx-ne^htiv. Ibid. 95 of the School 
of Hegesias, which does not in 
this respect differ from others : 
hyrfpovv 84 koL rhs ou<r%4\a€is ^k 
(ucpi^o^aas r^u 4vlyvwffiv, Aris- 
totle in Mts. Praep. Ev. xiv. 19, 
1 : k^TJs 8' hv cUv oi X4yovr€S /xSva 
rh vddri KaraXTprrd, rovro 8' 
elirov l^vioi rwv 4k rr)s Kvpijiniis 
(which in the face of the defi- 
nite statements of Cicero, Plu- 
tarch and Sextusydoes not prove 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




mon feelings, and when two persons say that they 
have felt the same thing, neither of them can be cer- 
tain that he has experienced the same feeling as the 
other, since he is only conscious of his own state and 
not of that of another.* 

Thus, like Protagoras,' the Cyrenaics regard all 
notions as relative and individual ; their view diflFer- 
ing from his in this respect only that they refer 
notions more directly to internal feelings, and leave 
out of sight • Heraclitus' doctrine of perpetual flow 

that this doctrine did not be- 
long to the whole School, nor 
can this be intended. Oonf . c. 
18, 31) . . . Kai6ii€vot yitp flKtyoy 
tcai. r€fiy6fi9POi yywpi(uv, Sri itw 
iTXoi^v Ti * irAr^pov 5^ r^ iccubv cfi| 
wwp % rh rifjofov ei^pos oIk ^x*"' 
dirctv. Sexttis, Math. vi. 63, 
says : fi6va ^wriv ^dpx^^y t^ 
w&ti, &XXo 8i oifdh, 50cr iral 
T^f^ ^wv^pf fjiil oZiraw rdSos ikWh 
wi6ovs rroiirriK^Vf fih yivwBtu rwv 
tKoptcTwy. But this is inaccu- 
rate. The Cyrenaics, we gather 
from the above, cannot have 
denied the existence of things, 
but only our knowledge of their 
existence. This whole theory 
probably belongs to the elder 
Aristippus, as will be probable 
from a passage in Plato soon to 
be mentioned. Against Tenite- 
majh't notion (Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 
106) that it first came from 
Theodoras, see Wendi, Phil. 
Oyr. 45. 

» Sext. Math. vii. 195 : Mw 
M\ Kpiirfipi6y ^xuri cTyoi Koivhy 
iufBpd^ofP, 6v6fMra Si KOtvd rlBeffdai 
roh Kpifuuri, \evKhv fiky ydp ri 
jcal y\vKb KdKovffi Koiy&s wdintSy 
Kotvhw 94 TI XcvK^y ^ yKvith obtt 

tx*'^^"'' ^iccurros yitp rov Uitov 
xddovs ivrikafifidptrai, rh 8i el 
rovro rh irddos i.xh \evKov iyyi' 
Vfrai ahr^ iced t^ w^Kois, o^* 
abrhs Zvparcu \iyttv, fi^ kvaJHex^- 
fi€POS rh rod w4\as irdiBos, otfre 6 
T4\aSt M^ it»aSfX^fi€vos rh ixtirov 
. . . rdxtt, yhp lyii) fiky oSro» 
irvyK4Kpi/xcu &s >tvKaiv€<r9iu bwh 
rov %lot9€y wpoanrlirroyroSj ^€pos 
Hk o5to» Kar€<rK€va(rfi4yriy ^xct r^ 
ci<r67i<riy, Stffr* Mpus Siarcd^rou, 
in support of which the example 
of a jaundiced or diseased eye* 
sight is adduced. It follows 
then : Koivh filw ii/ias oySfutra 
riB4$fai roTs wpdyfuurt, TrdBri 94 yt 

* ZeUer's Phil. d. Griech, i. 

• The last point has been too 
much lost sight of by Sohleier- 
maoher (Plato's Werke, ii. 1, 
183), who considers the de- 
scription of the Protagorean 
teaching in the Thesetetus to be 
chiefly meant for Aristippus, 
whose view does not absolutely 
coincide with that of Protago- 
ras. See Wendt, Phil. Cyr. 37. 
On the other hand, the differ- 
ence between them is exagger- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



as something not wanted for their purposes and 
transcending the limits of human knowledge.^ If 
knowledge, however, be confined to knowledge of 
feelings, it follows on the one hand that it would be 
absurd to seek for a knowledge of things, such know- 
ledge being once for aU impossible; and thus the 
sceptical attitude assumed by the Cyrenaics in respect 
to knowledge, was the ground of their conviction of 
the worthlessness of aU physical enquiries.* On the 
other hand, for this very reason feeling only can give 



ated by the Academician in 
do. (see p. 348, 1), who ascribes 
to Protagoras a view entirely- 
different from that of the Cy- 
renaics, and by Eos. Pr. Ev. xiv. 
19, 5, who after discussing the 
Cyrenaics introduces Protagoras 
with these words : lirrrat rodrois 
•Sr <rvu€^eTd(rou K(d rohs r^iv hav' 
rlaif fia8l(oyraSy Koti vdyra Xf"i^^ 
wurrt^eiv rais rod adifiaros odff&^i- 
ifeffkv 6pi<rafji4vov5, for Protagoras 
only asserted the truth of all 
perceptions in the sense that 
they were all true for him who 
perceived them, that things 
were to each one what they ap- 
peared to him to be. In this 
sense the Cyrenaics, as Seztus 
has rightly shown, declared all 
to be true, but both they and 
Protagoras said nothing about 
objective truth, Hermann's 
objection here to Gtes. Ab. 
236, on the ground that Prota- 
goras was far more subjective 
than Aristippus, since Aristip- 
pus presupposed an agreement 
amongst men in describing their 
impressions, is still more at 
variance with the statements of 
Cicero and Eusebios, to which 

Hermann appeals,f or they do not 
make Protagoras more subjec- 
tive than Aristippus, but Aris- 
tippus more subjective than Pro- 
tagoras. In the next place it is 
not correct. Of course Prota- 
goras did not deny that certain 
names were used by all, he even 
treated himself of the kpe6r'ns 
hvoii6.r<av{Zeller''8V\nL d.Griech. 
i. 933, 1), but what is the use 
of agreeing in names when the 
things differ ? The Cyrenaics 
are only more accurate than 
Protagoras in asserting that 
perceptions which are C£dled by 
the same name are not the same 
in different persons. But there 
is no disagreement in the teach- 
ing of the two. 

* Had they acted consistently 
they must have regarded as such 
every attempt at a natural ex- 
planation of our perceptions. 
We must, therefore, not be mis- 
led by Plvt. N. P. Suav. Vivi 
Sec. Epic. 4, 5, p. 1069, so as to 
attribute to them the view of 
Democritus about pictures and 
emanating forms. 

2 As Biog, ii. 92 remarks, 
(See p. 346, 1.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




(3) Plea- 



the rule by which the aim of actions is determined 
and their value tested. For things being only known 
to us in our own feelings, the production of certain 
feelings is all that can be attained by action ; hence 
the best thing for us will be what is most gratifying 
to our feelings.^ Here from the Cyrenaic theory of 
knowledge follow those ethical principles, which in 
other ways also it was their main object to establish. 
All feeling, as Aristippus assumes, following Pro- 
tagoras, consisting in an emotion in him who experi- 
ences it, if the motion be gentle, there arises a feeling 
of pleasure ; if rough and violent,^ of pain ; if again 

» iS^da?^. Math. vii. 199 :&i'(£Xo7a 
9^ cTvcu hoKil rois ircpl KpiTijpluv 
k€yopi4vois KarA ro{rrovs robs hr- 
Zpas Koi r& Tcpi r€\&tf \ty6fifva * 
Si^Kci yap rii wdj^i icoi iwl rik 
r4\7i. Ihid. 200. 

» Buseb. Pr. Bv. xiv. 18, 32, 
says of the yonnger Aristippus 
on the authority of Aristocles : 
rp€is yhp ^^T} Karaffrdtreis elvcu 
V9p\ T^y rifur4pav e^Kpcuriv * fdatf 

l»jkv KOB^ ^V &kyOVfAWf ioiKVMV Tf) 

Karh OdKcurtrcof x^'M^^< * ^f^pov Jih 
Ka$^ iiv 7i^6fi€$a^ T^ \cltp fct^/uori 
iil>oixotovfi4vr)v * cTvai yhp \tiay Ki- 
yriffiv riiv ri^oviiv obpitp ira^afiaX' 
\ofi4y7iv &v4fjup • tV Zh rphnv 
fi4(niy chcu Kar&ffrcurtyj koB^ V 
oCt€ akyovfjifv ofhe ii1i6ix€0a,ycL\.riyp 
TopatrKiia'iov odacty. Diog, ii. 86, 
says almost the same thing of 
the older Cyrenaic school : 8^ 
itdJdii 6<pi<rravT0f •ir6vov icol ^Soi^y, 
T^v fi^p \flav Kivriffiv rijv ^8ov^v, 
rhy 8i T6yoy rpax^lav Klyri<riy. 
Ibid. 89, 90 : fi4<ra5 re icaro- 
ordireis w6fui(ov atiHoyiay iccJ 
ikiroylav. Sext. Pyrrh. i. 215: 
[i^ KvpriyaXKii ieyotyii] riiy rihoy^v 

K(d T^y \eiav rrjs ffapkhs Klyriffty 
r4\os thou \4yti. Math. vii. 199 : 
r&y yap fruduy r^ ix4y larty ^8ca, 
rk Z\ kKytivd, rk 8e fitra^i. That 
these statements come, on the 
whole, from the elder Aristip- 
pus, appears to be established by 
several passages in the Philebus. 
After Socrates (p. 31, B.) has 
there shown that pain consists 
in a violation, and pleasure in 
a restoration, of the natural 
connection between the parts of 
a living being, he appends (p. 
42, D.) the question; What 
would happen if neither of these 
changes were to take place f 
The representative of the theory 
of pleasure having answered in a 
way afterwards repeated by 
Plato, Rep. ix. 583, C, that in 
this case there would be neither 
pleasure nor pain, he continues : 
ndWitrr^ cTrcv * &AA.Jk yiip^ olfuu, 
T<J8e \4yfiSj 6)S Acf ti Toinvy 
&yayKaloy rifuy ffufifialytiy, &s ol 
tro^oi (poffty * &cl yiip iray^a &ym 
Tc Koi Kdrw i^ct. Accordingly 
the answer is modified to mean 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



We are in a state of repose, or the motion is so weak 
a& to be imperceptible, there is no feeling either of 
pleasure or pain. Of these three states, only that 
of pleasure is absolutely desirable. Hereto nature 
bears witness ; all following pleasure as the highest 
end, and avoiding nothing so carefully as pain,* unless 
indeed their judgment be perverted by unfounded 
fancies.^ To put freedom from pain in the place of 


that great changes produce 
pleasure and pain, but small 
ones neither. To the same view 
he comes back (on p. 53, C.)> 
with the words : Spa ircpl Ti^ovris 
ovK aKtiHoAfiiv^ &s del yiveais 
inriv, ovffia 84 ohh tan rh itapdvouf 
^801^5; KOfjL^ol yhp 8^ ripes a5 
T0V70V rhv }<&yov ivix^ipovai 
firiv^fiy vfiiu^ ots ^ei x^P^^ ^X^*''* 
These latter words clearly prove 
that the assertion, all pleasure 
consists in motion, had been 
uttered by some one else, when 
Plato wrote the Philebus ; and* 
since with the exception of 
Aristippus no one is known to 
whom they could be referred 
(Protagoras did not draw the 
ethical conclusions of his prin- 
ciples), since moreover this as- 
sertion is universally attributed 
to the School of Aristippus, 
since too the epithet Ko/iif/^s 
suits him best, it is most pro- 
bable that both this passage 
and the passage connected with 
It on the two kinds of motion 
and rest, are his. The same 
applies to the remark, that 
small changes make no impres- 
sion. Likewise, Diog. ii. 85, 
says of Aristippus : riKos 8' 

aX(TBr\<nv hvaZi^oniviiv^ according 
to which not every slight mo- 

tion is felt or produces plea- 
sure. Perhaps it is in reference 
to this that Arigt. Etb. N. vii. 
13, 1153, a, 12, says : 8tb koX oh 
Kokwi ?x** '^^ aio'd'firiip yiy^aiv 
^>6.vai tlvai T^v 7fiov4\y, Nor can 
we allow that there is a dis- 
crepancy (as Suseniihl, Genet. 
Entw. d. Plat. Phil. ii. 35, note, 
720 asserts) between the lan- 
guage of Plato, p. 42, D., and 
the statements which attribute 
to Aristippus the assumption of 
an intermediate state between 
pleasure and pain. Hence we 
cannot countenance the con- 
jecture that Aristippus acquired 
from Plato the more accurate 
limitation of his teaching. 
Why did not Aristippus say: 
We are at all times in a state 
of gentle or violent motion, but 
pleasure or pain only arises, 
when we become conscious of 
this motion ? Yet this is exactly 
what he did say according to 
Diogenes, and what Plato 
makes his representative say, 
though certainly not without 
some conversational help. 

» I)ii>g. 88 ; 87 ; PUitOy Phik 
11, B. See above p. 347, 1. 

* Diog. ii. 89 : ZvyatrOai Zi 
^atri KoX r^v rjZotrfiy rivas /x^ 
alpuaOai Karh, diatrrpoip'fiy. 

A A 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




(4) The 



pleasure would not be correct, for where there is no 
eiQotion, enjoyment is as little possible as pain, the 
condition being one of insensibility, as in sleep.^ Thus 
the good conies to be identical with what is agree- 
able — ^with pleasure ; the evil, with what is disagree- 
able, or unpleasant ; what affords neither pleasure nor 
pain can be neither good nor eviL* 

From this view it follows, as a matter of course, 
^ that individual feelings of pleasure must, as such, be 
the ends of all actions. Simple repose of mind, that 
freedom from pain, in which Epicurus at a later time 
placed the highest good, cannot, for the reason just 
given, be this good.* It also appeared to the Cyrenaics 
unsatisfactory to make the happiness ' of the whole 
life the point to be kept in view, and to make it the 

* IXog. 89 : ij 8i rod itKyovvros 
&wf^alpt<ri5 {&s ^fniTOU wap^ 'Eiri- 
Kovp^) 8oirc( avrciis fi^elvai Ti^oviif 
ovSe Y) aij^oula &Kyri9(Jitf, iv Ktv^- 
<r€i yiio tlvai &iJUj>OT4paf fx^ oUtrris 
r^s iwoyias fj rrjs iiri^ovlas Kirf\- 
trews. iiTfl ^ &irovia oTov KoBe^)- 
^otrr6s iari Kardaraffis. Such 
explicit statements probably be- 
long to a later time, and are due 
principally to the School of 
Anniceris in contrast to Epi- 
curus, according to Clemens, 
Strom, ii. 417 B. 

« Sext. Matt. vii. 199 : rh /uiv 
iiXydva Kcucd <pourty tlvaij &v r4\05 
aKyniioy, r^ 8^ riBia d7a6c^, Sv 
t4\os iffrly &hd'p€Vffrov 7|5oi^, rd 

wr rtAOS rb oUrf ayaBhv O0rc 
KOKhPj 8irep vdBos tffrl fitra^b 
TihovTJs Koi dL\yrib6vos. See p. 
352, 2. 
» See p. 300, 1. IHoff. iL 87: 

i^oviiv fjiivroi i^v rov ct&fiaTOS 
V ical r4\os cTycu, iroOd 4^0-1 Kai 
flavalrios iy r^ ircf»l r&v cupcVewr, 
oh riiv KartufrfiiiartK^v ifiov^v 
r^v in^ iuaipffffi aXyri^dpuy Koi 
oToy aynx^ritriay, fjy 6 *EiriKuvpos 
&iro8cx«rai koX r4Kos etvcd py\in. 
Perhaps the words in Cic, Fih. 
ii. 6, 18 (after his having said 
similar things, 1. 1, 39), are 
taken from a similar passage : 
aut enim earn voluptatem tue- 
retur, quam Aristippus, i.e. qua 
sensus dulciter ac jucunde mo- 
vetur . . . nee Aristippus, qui 
voluptatem summum bonum 
dicit, in voluptate ponit non 
dolere. 13, 39: Aristippi Cy- 
renaicorumque omnium ; quos 
non est veritum in ea voluptate 
quae maxime dulcedine sensum 
moveret, summum bonum po- 
nere, contemnentes istam va- 
cuitatem doloris. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



aim of mankind to procure for themselves the highest 
sum total of enjoyments that can be in this life. 
Such a principle requires the past and the future as 
well as the present to be included in the pursuit, 
neither of which are in our power, and which certainly 
afford no enjoyment. A future feeling of pleasure is 
an emotion which has not yet begun ; a past one is 
one which has already ceased,* The one only rule of 
life is to cultivate the art of enjoying the present 
moment. Only the present is ours. Forbear then 
to trouble for that which is already past and for that 
what may never be yours.^ 


* Diog. 87 : 5ojcc« 8* adrols koL 
r4\of th^oufioylas Zteupiptip. r4\os 
fi^p yhp €lpai r^v Kard /i€po9 
ijioviiVf tviaifjMviav $4 rh 4k rwv 
fiepiK&y Tf^ov&v (r^ffmifia, aXs irvva* 
p^fjLOvvrai Koi al vapq^xriicvicu Kcd 
at fjiiK\ov<rau. elrot t« t^v /icpt- 
K^v -/fiov^v hi* a^^p alper^y ' r^p 
- 8* fdJiaifiovlap oO 8i' a^rijv, iiXXh 
BA riis KariL fidpos i^^opds. 89 : 
&AA^ fi^p oM Kuril fiv^fiviv rwv 
hrfad&p ^ TrpoffhoKicof T/jHopiiP ipcurip 
dirorcXeia^flu, 8irfp lip^ffKCP *Eiri- 
Koiptp, iK\v€aBai yap rtji 'Xp6vtp 
rh T^* ^vXVf iclprifia. Ibid. 91 : 
ipjcct S^ ichp karh fiiav [t)8oi^v] 
ris vpotnriirroveay ^$^ws ivavdyp, 
Athen. xiL 644, a: [*Ap((rrtiriro5] 
&iro8c(^jii€yos T^v ^Svirdi^eiav taO- 
riip r4\os cTyat ^4>t} Koi 4p ai/rp 
riip tdhaifiovlap $€$\Ti<rdai Koi 
fi6y6xpopop wir^y tlvai * irapairA.if- 
fflcts rois iuTiiorois oUrt rijv fip^iit)P 
r&v yeyopvi&p kKoXaOaiap irphs 
a^hp riyoififpos oCt€ r^p 4\vi?ia 
r&p 4<rofi4puPf 4\A* hi fi6p(p rh 
ityoBhp Kplptap r^ trdpopn, rh 8i 
&iroA.c\avK6Vai KaX hTcoXaiativ oh- 
Zh pofiiiap rphs avrhp, rh iikp cbs 

o^K ^ %p^ rh B\ ofhtw Kol iZviKop. 
JElicm. V.H. xiv. 6 : tApv (r^6hpa 
4ppufi4yus 44k€i K4y§ip 6 *Api- 
ernnros, irapiyyv&p, fiijre rois 
irap«\$odffiP 4'iriKtifip€ip, fA-frrt rap 
k-Ki6prwp vpoKdfiPUp * cvOvfiias ykp 
HfTyfia rh roiovrOy Ktxi i\€09 tut' 
yoias dir^Sci^ts * irpcNr^Tarre 8^ 4ip>* 
rifx4p€^ rijp yp^fXTiP f^x^^^ '^^ o9 
irdKiy r^s rifi4pas 4ir' 4Kflyq» r^ 
fi4p€i Koff % ^Kcurros fj irpdrru 
ri ^ 4yvo€i ' fi6yoy yhp i^atrKey 
r)fi4r€poy cTvai rh waphp, fi'fjre 8^ 
rh ^Qdvoy fi'fir€ rh vpo<rioK(&fi€yov • 
rh fikv yap iiro\<»\4yai, rh bk &8t}- 
\op elyai eJfirep Itrrot. There can 
be no doubt that Aristippus 
had already propounded these 
views, his whole life presup- 
posing them, and his other 
views immediately leading to 
them, p. 352, 2. The precise f or- 
mularising of them may very 
possibly belong to the period 
of Epicurus. 

' IHog. 66 i &ir^Xave fih yhp 
['ApftTTiinros] Tji^ovris r&p -jrapSp' 
rwPf odK iBiipa 8i icSptp r^p iLv6' 
Xauaip rwp ov irapSprotp • 66ty kcA 

AA 2 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




(5) Modi- 
of this ex- 

The character of the things whence the feeling of 
pleasure arises is in itself unimportant. Every plea-* 
sure as such is a good, nor is there in this respect 
any diflFerence between one enjoyment and another. 
They may spring from various, even from opposite 
sources, but considered by themselves, they are all 
alike, one is as good as the other, a pleasurable enao- 
tion, and as such always a natural object of desire.* 
The Cyrenaics therefore can never allow that there 
are pleasures not only declared by law and custom 
to be bad, but bad by their very nature. In their 
view pleasure may be occasioned by a disreputable 
action, but in itself it is nevertheless good and de- 

At the same time this principle received several 
limitations by means of which its severity was con-» 
siderably toned down, and its application restricted. 
In the first place, the Cyrenaics could not deny that 


* Biog. 87 : m^ Sia(p4p€ip re 
ri^ov^y Tftiopris, /i^5i 9iSi6y ri 
€li/oi. Plato, Phileb. 12, D., 
where the champion of plea- 
sure answers the objection of 
Hocrates that good pleasures 
must be distinguished from 
bad ones thus : ehl fx*u yhp 
dir* ivavritav .... aSrai vpayfid- 
ra)Vf oi) fx^u ahred ye aWiiKais 
ivcunitu ' vus ydp 7)Boy^ ye riBovf 
fi^ ovx 6fioi6raTov &v tfjj, roiiro 
avrh eavTtp, vdvrcov, XPVl^^'^'^^ i 
\Ibid. 13, A.: \4yeis ykp iiyada 
wdura tlvai tA iS4a, how is 
this possible in the case of the 
Tvorst pleasures ? to which Pro- 

tarchus replies: ir«s Xeyeis & 
^^Kpcvres; oXei ydp riva (Tvyx^ph- 
trecOai, 04fAepov ifBov^y etvcu raynb- 
66vy eXra M^eirBal irov \4yoyros 
rds fi^y ehal rivas kyoBhs rfiovhs, 
rhs S4 rivas erepaS adrwp Kcucds. 
Just as little will Protarchu* 
(36, C.) allow that there is 
imaginary pleasure and pain. 
See p. 347, 1. 

i^yadhv kkv iirb r&y &<rxY}/itoT^rwy 
y4v7iraif KaBd ^<rip 'linrSfioros 4v 
T9» Kepi oup4<reav. ei ydp Koi ii 
irpa^ts droTTOs eXri, ciAA* odv ^ 
TjHotr^ Bi a^ijy cdperii K<d ayad6v. 
To the same effect is the pas- 
sage quoted from the Philebus 
on p. 368, 1. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Aotwithstanding the essential likeness there were yet Chap. 

differences of degree in feelings of pleasure: for '_ 

allowing that every pleasure as such is good, it does 
not follow that the same amount of good belongs to 
all : as a matter of fact one affords more enjoyment 
than another, and therefore deserves to be preferred 
to it,^ Just as little did it escape their notice, that 
many enjoyments are only purchased at the cost of 
greater pain ; hence they argue unbroken happiness 
is so hard to gain.^ They therefore required the 
consequences of an action to be taken into account ; C^-^^^ * ^ 
thus endeavouring again to secure by an indirect 
method the contrast between good and evil which 
they would not at first allow to attach to actions 
themselves. An action should be avoided when there- 
from more pain follows than pleasure ; hence a man 
of sense wiU abstain from things which are con- 


' Biog. 87 says that the Cy- 
renaics denied a difference in 
degrees of pleasure, but this is 
undoubtedly a mistake. Diog. 
ii. 90, says that they taught 
that bodily feelings of plea- 
sure and pain were stronger 
than mental ones. See p. 358, 3. 
Plato too, Phil. 45, A. : 66 B., 
in the spirit of this School, 
' talks of fjLfyiirrcu rQv rfiovaVj nor 
is there the slightest reason 
for equalising all enjoyments in 
their system. They could not 
allow that there was an abso- 
lute difference of value be- 
tween them, some being good 
and others bad ; but they had 
no occasion to deny a relative 
difference between the more or 
less good, and they might even 

allow of different kinds of plea- 
sure, those of the body and 
mind for instance. Ritter's 
remarks on Diog. ii. 103, do 
not appear conclusive. Just 
as little can those of Wendt 
(Phil. Cyr. 34, Gott. Aug. 1836, 
789) be entertained. Accord- 
ing to Diogenes the Cyrenaics 
only denied that any object 
taken by itself and indepen- 
dently of our feelings was more 
pleasant than another. 

« IHog. 90 : 8i6 [?] koL naff afrf^v 
alperris oUtrris rris riSoprjs ra iroiij- 
riK^ ivlwv Tf^ovwv ox^Vp^ troX- 
Adicis ivamiovffdaf &s ^vffKoX^' 
rarov ahrots <p<Uy€<r0ai rhv iLBpoi" 
(Tfihy rSov rfiovwv eiSatfiopiay irot« 
oOptwv, See p. 355, 1. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




' demned by the laTvs of the state and public opinion.* 
Lastly, they also directed their attention to the 
difference between bodily and mental pleasures.* 
Holding bodily pains and pleasures to be more pun- 
gent than those of the mind ; • perhaps even attempt- 
ing to show that all pleasure and its opposite are in 
the last resource conditioned by bodily feelings ; * 

> Dioff, 93: tafi4p n tfmi 
^<Mrii 9lKcuoy ^ xaXhu ^ aitrxpi^P, 
the value of every action de- 
pending on the pleasure which 
follows it, &XX^ v6fi^ KaX I6ct, 
6 fi.4vroi ffwoviaios oMf Srorw 
fpd^ti 9tk rits iirucufjjyas C^/Jas 
Koi 96ias. Wendt (Phil. Cyr. 
25) calls this statement in 
question without reason. It is 
quite consistent in Aristippus, 
and is met with in Epicurus ; 
Mler, Stoics, &c. ; but he is 
right {lUd. 36, 42) in reject- 
ing Sdileiermacher's hypothe- 
sis (PL W. ii. 1, 183 ; ii. 2, 18), 
that in the Grorgias Aristippus 
is being refuted under the name 
of Callicles, and in the Cra- 
tylus 384, Diogenes under that 
of Hermogenes. 

• Which, strictly speaking, 
they could only have done by 
saying that one portion of our 
impressions appears to us to 
come from the body, another 
not; for they had long since 
given up all real knowledge of 
things. But their consistency 
hardly went so far as this. 

» Liop. ii. 90: iroXh iiivroi 
r&v ^vxifcwif T^f ffOffiariiAs &/ie(- 
vovs cfi/ai Koi rhs 5xM<rcis x^^povs 
riis (TwfJMriKds * 80cy Koi radrats 
KoXd(M6ou fioWoy rohs afiopri- 
popras, (The same, 7M/f.z. 137.) 
XO^circirrcpor yi^> rh iroptlp, oiieci- 

6T9pop9h rh 9i9Hr$ai iw€Kifi0at^p * 
Mcr Koi irXelopa oUcopofdatr n^fA 

* This is indicated by the ex- 
pression oiK€tiAr€pop in the above 
passage also. See p. 359, 2. 
To say that not all pleasure and 
pain is connected with bodily 
states, may be harmonised 
with this statement by taking 
it to be their meaning, that not 
every feeling has its immediate 
object in the body, without, 
however, denying more remote 
connection between such feel- 
ings and the body. Joy for one's 
country's prosperity might in 
their minds be connected with 
the thought that our own hap- 
piness depends on that of our 
country. It can only be con- 
sidered an opponent's exagge- 
ration for Panaetius and Cicero 
to assert that the Cjnrenaics 
made bodily pleasure the end 
of life. (See p. 364, 3.) de. 
Acad. iv. 45, 139 : Aristippus, 
quasi animum nullum habea- 
mus, corpus solum tuetur. The 
highest good Aristippus de- 
clared consists not in bodily 
pleasure, but in pleasure gene- 
rally. If he regarded bodily 
pleasure as the strongest, and 
in this sense as the best, it by 
no means follows that he ex- 
cluded mental pleasures from 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


they nevertheless contended that there must be a Chap. 
something besides sensuous feelings, or it would be ^^' 
impossible to explain how unequal impressions are 
produced by perceptions altogether alike : — the sight, 
for instance, of the suflferings of others, if they are 
real, gives a painful impression ; if only seen on the 
stage, a pleasurable one.^ They even allowed that 
there are pleasures and pains of the mind which have 
no immediate reference to any states of the body. 
The prosperity, for instance, of our country fills us 
with as much pleasure as does our own.^ Although 
therefore pleasure is in general made to coincide with 
the good, and pain with evil, the Gyrenaics are far 
from expecting happiness to result from the mere 
satisfaction of animal instincts. For a true enjoy- 
ment of life, you not only need to weigh the value 
and the consequences of every enjoyment, but you 
need also to acquire the proper dispositi on of mind. '< 
The most essential help to a pleasant life is pnid^g^' 
not only because it supplies that presence of mind 
which is never at a loss for means,* but, mainly, be- 
cause it teaches how to make a proper use of the 

the idea of good Indeed^ his rhi y^vx^^^ ^hovhs koI iLKyifi6vas 

remarks respecting the value hr\ cwfiortKcus ri9oy€us xoi itXyri- 

of prudence make this probable. 96<n yiyttrOai' leai y^ M ^i\^ 

See Wendtf 22. rp rrjs irarpl^s tbtifxepitf &(nrfp 

* Diog. 90 : \4yown W firiZh tJ ISff X'H*^ iyyiywdai, 
«otA tfriXi^y riiv Upatriv fj t^v ijco^^ * See p. 347, 2. 
yiveaOeu ^8oi^s, rQv yovv fjLifiov- * See the anecdotes and pro- 

fi4ywy epiirovs ^8c»f &Ko^/icr, verbs in IHog. 6S ; 73 ; 79 ; 82, 

r»y 8i Kor* kKfiStiay an8«f. The and what Galen, Exhort, c. 5, 

same is found in Plut, Qu. vol. i. 8, K, and Vitruv. vi. 

Conv. V. 1, 2, 7, p. 674. Here Prsef. i., say of his shipwreck, 

belongs do, Tusc ii. 13, 28. Conf. Exc. e Floril. Joan. Da- 

' £iog. 89 : oh irdaas pkivroi masc. ii. 13, 138. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




good things of life ; * freeing from the prejudices and 
fancies which stand in the way of success, such as 
envy, passionate love, superstition ; ^ preserving from 
regret for the past, from desire for the future, from 
dependence on present enjoyment ; and guaranteeing 
that freedom of soul of which we stand in need would 
we at every moment rest contented with our present 

Hence the cultivation of the mind is urgently 
advocated by these philosophers,^ and philosophy in 
particular pointed to as the way to a truly human 
life.* They even assert that therein lies the essential 
condition of happiness ; for although mankind are 
too feir dependent on external circumstances for the 
wise man to be invariably ha^py, and the foolish 
man invariably miserable,® yet as a rule so it is. Nor 

* Demetr, (Elocut. 296) men- 
tions as an ethos rov hAyov*hpiff' 
riinri'iov ' tiri ol AvOpwroi xp^f^ra 
fihp &iro\c(irovo'( rois ircuiriv ^iritf-- 
TfifAtiv Si ov fftfyairoktlvovffi riir 
XP^(F0fi4infiv airois. The thought 
is Socratic. See p. 141, 3. 

* Diog. 91 : rhv trophy fifirt 
ipdoviitruv /xfyre ipeur$4iff€ff$tu (on 
this point compare the Ian- 
gruage used by Aristippus re- 
specting his relations to Lais) 
^ SeurtSaifAoviiirtiVf whereas he is 
not preserved from fear and 
sorrow as being natural conse- 

» See p. 355, 2. 

* Many expressions to this 
effect are on record, particu- 
larly those of Aristippus, Diag, 
it 69, 70, 72, 80. Plut. Frag. 
9, 1, and comment, in Hes. 

* See the saying of Aristip- 

pus in Diog. ii. 72; Phd. Ed. 
Pu. 74. He is also mentioned 
by Diogenes ii. 68 (Conf. Exc 
e Floril. Joan. Damasc. ii. 13, 
146) as the author of the say- 
ing, which do. Rep. i. 2 ; Plut. 
adv. CJol. 30, 2, p. 1124, attri- 
bute to Xenocrates, that the 
conduct of the philosopher 
would remain the same, sup- 
posing all lawd to be abolished. 
• JDiog. 91 : &p^KC( 8* adrois 
/a4tc rhv cwphy irdvTa iiB4tts (gv, 
fifjre irdyra (pav\ov iirnrStfCfS, 
&kXh Kard rh ir\€i<rroy. In the 
same way the Cyrenaics would 
not deny that the Ik^povts were 
capable of certain virtues. 
Probably this was only ex- 
pressly stated by later mem- 
bers of the School in agree- 
ment with the Cynics and 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





is this a departure from the fundamental principle of 
the School, the pursuit of pleasure, but certainly 
something very dififerent has come of it from what 
might at first have been expected. 

Herewith agrees all that is further known as to c. PrtiC' 
the views and conduct of Aristippus. His leading ^y^;^^*^. 
thought is comprised in the adage, that life offers remics. 
[ most to him who, without ever denying himself a 
Ipleasure, at every moment continues master of him- 
*self and his surroundings. The Cjmic freedom from 
wants is not his concern. Prudent enjoyment he says 
is a greater art ^ than abstinence. He lived not only 
comfortably, but even luxuriously.^ A good table he 
enjoyed,* wore costly clothing,* scented himself with 
perfumes,^ and caroused with mistresses.® Nor were 

according to Alexis ; Ibid. viii. 
343, according to Soter ; Timon 
in Diog. ii. 66; IHd. ii. 69, 
iv. 40; Luoian. V. Auct. 12 
Clemens, Paedag. ii. 176, D. 
Mis. Pr. Ev. xiv. 18, 31 ; Epiph, 
Exp. Fid. 1089 A.; Steele, p. 
41; 71. 

' See the anecdotes in Diog, 
ii. 66, 68, 69, 75, 76. 

*.Max, Tyr. Diss. vii. 9; 
Luoian, 1. c. ; Ibid. Cic. Ace. 23 ; 
Taticm adv. Grac. c. 2; Tert. 
Apol. 46. 

* That he made use of fra- 
grant perfumes, and defended 
this practice, is told by Seneca, 
Benef . vii. 26, 1 ; Clem, Paed. 
ii. 176 D., 179 B., IHog. 76, all 
apparently from the same 
source, the others mentioned by 
Stein, 43, 1, probably doing 

* His relations to Lais are 
well known. Hermesianaz iu 

Floril. 17, 18 : Kparei 
^dov^s ohx ^ iLvcx^fJ>^f05j ^lKK* 6 
Xp^fJ^vos fjL^y fA^i ifap€K^cp6fi€vo$ 
Bk, Diog. 75 : rh Kparuv koI /a^ 
^TTa<r0ai vfiovSiv Kpdrurrov, oh rh 
P-h Xf>V(r&ai. 

* Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 1, already 
calls him iLKohcurrorepits fx*''^* 
.irphs rh TOiavra [irphs iviOvfiiay 
fiporrov Koi vorov koI Xayvtlas"], 
etc. He says himself then, 1, 9, 
that his object is f p^crrd ri leai 
ffiurra fiioreieiv and Socrates 
asks whether he depended for 
his homelessness on the cir- 
cumstance that no one could 
like to have him even as a 
slave ? ris yhp &k iBi\oi Mpwrov 
iv oiKi<f ^X^^^ irovciv fihv firiShy 
4Qi\ovra, Tff 8i iroXwT€\€<rT<(T|; 
Siairp x'^'h^^^ y ^is picture 
was afterwards more deeply 
coloured by later writers, and 
certainly not without exagge- 
ration. See Athen, xii. 544, 6, e. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



the means neglected by which this mode of life was 
rendered possible. On the contrary, he argued that 
the more of these you possess, the better for you. 
Biches are not like shoes, which when too large can 
not be worn.* He accordingly not only demanded 
payment for his instruction ; ' but did not hesitate 
to enrich himself by means, and for this purpose to 
submit to things which any other philosopher would 
have considered below his dignity.* The fear of 

Athen. ziii. 699, b, 588 c ; xii. 
544, b, d. ; de. dA Fam. ix. 26 ; 
Pint. Krot. 4, 5, p. 750 ; Diog. 74, 
85 ; ClemsM, Strom, ii. 411, C; 
Tkeod, Cur. Gr. Aff. xii. 60, p. 
173 ; Lact. Inst. iii. 15. A few- 
other stories of the same kind 
maj be found, Diog. 67; 69; 
8l;iv. 40. 

» Stoh. Floril. 94, 32. 

* See p. 339, 5. 

' Here belong many of the 
anecdotes which relate to Aris- 
tippns' stay at the court of 
Dionysius. According to Diog, 
77, Aristippns is said to have 
announced to Dionysius, on his 
arrival, that he came to impart 
what he had, and to receive 
what he had not ; or, according 
to a more probable version. 
Ibid, 78, when he wanted in- 
struction he used to go to So- 
crates for it, now that he 
wanted money, he had come to 
Dionysius. To the same person, 
too, according to Diog, 69, his 
remark was addressed that the 
reason why philosophers ap- 
peared before the doors of the 
rich, and not the contrary, was 
because philosophers knew 
what they wanted, whilst the 
rich did not. ^e same story 

is found in Stoh. Floril. 3, 46, 
and in a somewhat different 
connection, Diog, 70 and 81. 
Yet Schleiermacher on Plato^s 
Republic, vi. 489, has no busi- 
ness to refer this passage to 
this remark, because of Arut. 
Bhet. ii. 16, 1391, a, 8, but he 
is quite right in setting down 
the Scholiast who wished to 
attribute the remark of Socra- 
tes to Aristippus. Of the liberal 
offer made by Dionysius to 
Plato, he remarks in Phet, Dla 
19 : our^HxXws iityaK6^vx''*^ cTrm 
Aioviffiov airrois fikv 7^ fjuKp^ 

Ttnn 9k roXA^ fifi^kp \afifidiforrt, 
Dionysius at first refusing to 
give him any money because 
the wise man, on his own show* 
ing, was never in difficulties, 
he replied. Give me the money 
this once, and I will explain to 
you how it is; but no sooner 
had he got it, than he exclaimed, 
Ah 1 was I not right ? Diog. 
82, Diog, 67, 73, and Athen. xii. 
544, tell further, on the author- 
ity of Hegesander, that once 
having been placed at th6 
bottom of the table by Diony- 
sius because of some free ex- 
pression, he contented himself 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



death too, from which his teaching professed to de- 
liver,* was not so fully overcome by him that he 
could face danger with the composiure of a Socrates.^ 
It would, nevertheless, be doing Aristippus a 
great injustice to consider him an ordinary, or at 
most a somewhat more intellectual pleasure-seeker. 
Enjoy he will, but, at the same time, he will be 
above enjoyment. He possesses not only the skill of 
adapting himself to circumstances and making use of 
persons and things,^ not only the wit which is never at 



with remarking, To-day, this is 
the place of honour which he 
assigns. Another time he is 
said to have taken it quite 
quietly when Dionysius spat in 
his face, observing: A fisher- 
man must put up with more 
moisture, to catch even a smaller 
fish. Once, when begging a fa- 
vour for a friend, he fell at the 
feet of Dionysius, Diog. 79, and 
when reproached for so doing. 
Wherefore, he asked, has Diony- 
sius ears on his legs 7 It is a 
common story that Dionysius 
once asked him and Plato to 
appear dressed in purple : Plato 
refused to do so, but Aristippus 
acceded with a smile. Sext. 
Pyrrh. iii. 204, i. 165 ; Diog. 78 ; 
&iiid, 'Apitrr,; Stoh, Floril. 6, 
46 ; Chreg, Naa. Carm. ii. 10, 
324: the latter unskilfully 
places the incident at the court 
of Archelaus. Stein^ 67. The 
observation in Diog, 81, is like- 
wise referred to Plato, that he 
allowed himself to be abused 
by Dionysius for the same 
reasons that others abused him : 
a preacher of morals after all 
is only pursuing his own inter- 

ests. He is represented ast a 
flatterer and parasite of Diony- 
sius, by iMcian V. Aut. 12; 
Parasit. 33, Bis Accus. 23 j Men. 

* See Diog. 76 : at the same 
time the Cyrenaics consider 
fear to be something natural 
and unavoidable. See p. 360, 2. 

* On the occasion of a storm 
at sea he was charged with dis- 
playing more fear than others, 
notwithstanding his philoso- 
phy, to which he adroitly re- 
plied : oh yap irepi dfioias ^vx^s 
hyavi&ixev h^i^^rtpoi^ Diog. 71 ; 
Oell xix. 1, 10; JEliaUi V. H. 
ix. 20. 

» Diog, 66 : ^v U Uavhs 
ctpfi6(ra<rB(u Ka\ rSirt^ wod XP^^ 
Koi irpoffdoin^, Koi iratrav ircplarcuriv 
apfioBlaos ^oKplifa^ 0ai • Bih Kcd wapa 
Aiovvffltp r&u liWav cv5oK^/i€t 
fjMWoVy del T^ vpotrtrtffhv «S Biari' 
d4iAevo5. A few instances of this 
skill have been already seen 
(p. 362, 3). Here, too, belongs 
what is told by Galen, and fI- 
truv, (see p. 340), that after 
having suffered shipwreck, and 
lost everything, he immediately 
contrived in Syracuse or Rho- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




a loss for repartee,^ but he possesses also calmness of 
mind and freedom of spirit, which can forego pleasure 
without a pang, bear loss with composure, be content 
with what it hath, and feel happy in any position. 
His maxim is to enjoy the present, leaving care either 
for the future or the past, and imder all circum- 

des to procure an ample supply 
of necessities. Further, it is 
stated in Plutarchf Dio. 19, 
that he was the first to notice 
the growing estrangement be- 
tween Dionysius and Plato. In 
Di-ag, 68, he answers the ques- 
tion, What good he has got 
from philosophy, by saying: 
rh SvyourBat vaai Baff^o^rtas ^/uX- 
€lv — and IHog. 79, relates that 
when brought as a captive be- 
fore Artaphemes, some one 
asked him how he liked his 
situation, to which he replied, 
that now he was perfectly 
at rest. Well-known is the 
answer which he is reported to 
have given to Diogenes (which, 
however, is told of others), 
Diog. vi. 58, ii. 102 : cTircp ffScif 
iydptloirois d/uXc?y, o(>K Uy Xcixo^ 
lirAwej. Diog, 68 ; Hor. Ep. i. 
17, 13 ; Valer. Max. iv. 3, Ext. 4. 
1 See p. 362, 1 ; 363, 2. In a 
similar way he could defend 
;his luxuriousness. When blamed 
for giving fifty drachmsB for a 
partridge, Aristippus asked if 
he would have given a farthing 
ior it. The reply being in the 
affirmative ; I, said Aristippus, 
do not care more for fifty 
drachmae than you do for a far- 
thing. Diog. 66, 75 ; or with a 
different turn in Athen. viii. 
B43, c, where the story is told 
jpf him and Plato ^jfrqpos of a 

dish of fish: 6pas oSv . , . iri 
ai/y iyit 6}lfO<pdyoSf &AAcb ffh ffiKap- 
yi(ws. Another time he argues 
that if good living were wrong, 
it would not be employed to 
honour the festivals of the gods. 
JMd. 68. Another time, when 
some one took him to task for 
his good living, he asked him 
to dinner. The invitation being 
accepted, he at once drew the 
conclusion that he must be too 
stingy to live well himself. 
Ibid, 76. When Dionysius 
offered him the choice between 
three mistresses, he chose them 
all, with the gallant observa- 
tion, that it had been a bad 
thing for Paris to prefer one of 
three goddesses, but bade them 
all farewell at his door. Ibid. 
67. When attacked for his re- 
lations to Lais, he answered 
with the well-known Hx^ i^ 
obK l^x'^fuu. The same relation 
is said to have given rise to 
other light jokes ; it was all the 
same to him whether the house 
in which he lived had been 
occupied by others before ; he 
did not care whether a fish liked 
him, if he liked the fish. The 
Cynicism is betrayed by the 
anecdotes in Diog, 81, p. 341, 
4, although they are not other- 
wise at variance with Grecian 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



stances to keep cheerful.^ Come what may, there is 
a bright side to things,* and he knows how to weai' 
the beggar's rags and the robe of state with equal 
grace.^ Pleasure he loves, but he can also dispense 
therewith.^ He will continue master of his desires.* 
His temper shall not be ruffled by any risings of 
passion.® Some importance is attached to riches, 
but hardly any independent value,^ and therefore the 
want of them is never felt. He is lavish of them 
because he does not cling to them.® If necessary, he 
can do without them,® and is readily consoled for 


* See pp. 355 and 360, 

« Hoi\ Ep. i. 17, 23 : omnis 
Aristippum decuit color et sta- 
tus et res, tentantem majora 
fere,praBSentibiisaequum. Plut, 
de Vit. Horn. B., 160: ^Aprc- 
Tonros KoX irc^if fcal vSvois avvi^vi' 

iXP^ffaro, IHaff.66, p! 163, 3; 
366, 2. 

* According to IHog. 67, Plato 
is said to have remarked to 
him : ffol fxSvqf SeSorcu koI x^<ityi^a 
<f>4p€iv Kol pinos. The same re- 
mark, and not the story of the 
purple dress, is referred to by 
Mut, Virt. Alex. 8, p. 330: 
^Apiffriirjroy Baufid^Ofiai rhv tone- 
pHriKhv 5ri KaX rpifiavi Xir^ Kod 
MiXf^trtf X^dfioBi XP^f*^^^^ ^'' 
dLfiporfpcaJi iriipei rh tfiiTX'nt»-op, 
and Hor, Ep. i. 17, 27, on which 
passage the Scholiast tells how 
Aristippus carried off the sur- 
coat of Diogenes from the bath, 
leaving his purple cloak in- 
stead, which Diogenes refused 
to wear at any price, 

* Dioff. 67, p. 363, 4. 

* Ix*" "VIC ItxpiMU. Diog, 69* 

tells a saying of the same kind 
which Aristippus uttered on 
paying a visit to his mistress, 
to the effect that there was no 
need to be ashamed of going 
there, but there was of not 
being able to get away. 

• See p. 360, 2 & 3. PM.N.P. 
Suav. V. sec. Epic. 4, 5, p. 1089 : 
01 KvpiivalKfiX . . . oht^ dfjLiXeiP 
iktppo^iffiois oUmat Se7v fierh 
(pQirhSf &\X^ ffK^Tos irpoB€fi4vovSf 
tirofs fi^ rh ^u\a rijs irpd^^ws 
kva?Mtx$dyov<ra ^A riis 6^€ws 
€i€py&s iy airr^ ri Bidvota woWd^ 
HIS ayoKcdii r^u opt^iv. The same 
way of thinking is expressed in 
his definition of pleasure as a 
gentle motion of the mind. The 
storms of passion would change 
this gentle motion into a violent 
one, and turn pleasure into pain, 

' See p. 347, 1 

• See p. 363, 4, and the story 
that he bade his servant who 
was carrying a heavy burden 
of gold cast away what was too 
much for him. Hor, Serm. ii. 
3, 99 ; IHoff. 77. 

• Finding himself on board a 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



their loss.^ To him no possession appears more 
valuable than contentment,^ no disease worse than 
avarice.' He lives an easy life, but he is not on that 
account a&aid of exertion, and approves of bodily 
exercise.* His life is that of the flatterer, but he 
often expresses himself with unexpected candour.* 
Freedom he esteems above all things,^ and hence will 
neither rule nor be ruled, nor belong to any com- 
munity, being unwilling to forfeit freedom at any 

pirate vessel, he threw his 
money into the sea with the 
words: ikntivov ravra 8t' 'Af>(<r- 
TMTiroi' ^ Si^ ravra ^Kpiffrimrov 
iLiroK4<reai, Diog, 77; Cic. In- 
vent, ii. 68, 176 ; Avson. Idyl. iii. 
13 ; Stoh, Floril, 57, 13, taking 
care to read with Menage and 
Stein, p. 39, rh kpyOpiov for 

> InPZtt^.Tranq. An.8,p.469, 
Aristippos having lost an estate, 
one of his friends expresses 
sympathy with him, upon which 
Aristippus replies : Have I not 
now three estates, whilst you 
have only one ? Ought I not 
rather to sympathise with you? 

« Hor, see p. 366, 2, Diog; ii. 
72 : rh. Apurra &w€Ti6tro rp Bth- 
yarpl 'Api9r|7, awcuTK&v ahr^^w 
inc^povriK^v rov irXtloyos cTvai. 
Hence the same story in Ep. 
Socrat. 29, the compiler of this 
late and miserable counterfeit 
not having used the earlier 
genuine letters to Aret. men- 
tioned by Suid *Apiar. 

* See further details in Plut, 
Cupid. Div. 3, p. 624. 

* See p. 366, 2, Divg, 91 : r^y 
troffjiariK^v AffKiitny ovfxfid?iKta$€u 

• Several free expressions of 
his towards Dionysius are told 
by JDiog, 73, 77 ; Stob. Floril. 
49, 22 ; oonf . Greg, Naz. Carm. 
ii. 10, 419, vol. ii. 430 Codd. ; 
not to mention the anecdotes 
in Dioff. 76, repeated Ibid. vi. 
32 ; Galen. Exhort, ad Art. c. 8, 
i. 18, k. 

• On the principle mentioned 
by Hot, Bp. i. 1, 18 : nunc in 
Aristippi furtim praecepta rela- 
bor, et mihi res, non me rebus 
subjungere conor. According 
to the context, however, the 
principle should not be con- 
fined to Aristippus' relations to 
outward possessions. Here, too, 
the saying belongs Plwt. in 
Hes. 9, vol. xiv. 296, Hu. : <rw/i- 
fio6\ov httadai ;^€tpoy clycu rw 
irpoffaiTuv, Conf. p. 363, 3. 

^ Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 8. In reply 
to Socrates, who asked whether 
he considered himself among 
the number of those who rule^ 
or those who are ruled, Aris- 
tippus states : fyary' o2»S' i\us yt 
rdrrw ifiatrhy ci( rhv r&y Apx^u^ 
fiovKofi4yuy rd^iy. For, as is ex- 
plained here and p. 17, there is 
no man who is more troubled 
than a statesman: ifuwrhy rol- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Still less did he allow himself to be restrained by 
religious considerations or traditions. We have at 
least every reason for asserting this both of Aristippus 
personally, and of his School.^ Theodorus was pro- 
bably the first to gain notoriety for his wanton 
attacks on the popular faith;* still a connection 
between the Cyrenaic philosophy and the insipid 
rationalism of Euemerus* is far from certain. Nor 
ought it to be forgotten, that Aristippus strove to 
make life easy not only for himself, but also for 


9W rdrrv h rohs fiovXofiivovs f 
P^iTrd re Ktd ^iffra fitortdtuf, 
VSTien Socrates met this by ob- 
serving that those who rnle are 
better off than those who are 
ruled, he rejoined : &A.A.* iy^ roi 
ohSl €ls T^v 9ov\tiaif ad ifiaurhu 
rdrrw &A\' €hai rls /iot 8oK6i 
fUari Tointcv 6Vhs^ %v irtip&ixat 
/3a5£^€iv, o&rc 9i' iipxvs oUrt Utit 
9ovKfiaSf &X\& 8i* i\ev0€piaSf ^€p 
fidXurra irphs tbBatfwvlav Ayct, 
And after further objections: 
&\A.' iy^ roi, tva /i^ irdcxu ravro, 
oi>5' €is iroAiTcfav ifiavrhy KarO' 
K\€itt, &AA^ ^4yos iramayov flfu. 
Quite in keeping with this 
homeless life is the language 
used by Aristippus, according 
to Teles in Stob, Floril. 40, 8, 
vol. ii. 69, Mein., that to him it 
was of no moment to die in his 
country; from every country 
the way to Hades was the same. 
His address to Dionysius in 
Stob. Floril. 49, 22, is also quite 
in harmony with Xenophon's 
description: Had you learnt 
aught from me, you would 
shake off despotic rule as a di- 
sease. Being obliged, however, 
to live under some form of go- 

vernment, a good one is natu- 
rally preferable to a bad one ; 
and accordingly the saying 
attributed to him in Stob. 
Floril. 49, 18, touching the 
difference between a despotic 
and a monarchical form of go* 
vemment has about it nothing 
improbable. Nevertheless, at 
a later period Aristippus may 
have relaxed his views on civil 
life to a certain extent. At any 
rate he formed a connection 
with a family with which he 
would previously have nothing 
to do. Certainly Diag. 81, proves 
nothing. See p. 341, 4. 

> It was a natural conse- 
quence of their scepticism, that 
they followed Protagoras in his 
attitude towards religion ; and 
by means of their practical 
turn that freedom from reli- 
gious prejudices was decidedly 
promoted, which they espe« 
cially required in the wise 
man. IHoff. 91, see p. 360, 2. 
Clemens, Strom, vii. 722, D., 
says more generally that they 
rejected prayer. 

* Particulars of this below. 

• See p. 343, 6. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



others. Possessed of pleasing and attractive man-' 
ners,* an enemy of vanity and boasting,* he could 
comfort friends with sympathy,* and bear injuries 
with calmness.* He could avoid strife,* mitigate 
anger,* and conciliate an oflFended friend.'^ The most 
extraordinary spectacle to his thinking is said to 
have been a virtuous man steadily pursuing his course 
in the midst of the vicious ; * and that such was really 
his opinion is shown by his reverence for Socrates. 
It may therefore be true,® that he congratidated 
himself on having become, thanks to Socrates, a man 
capable of being praised in all good conscience. In a 
word, with all his love of enjoyment, Aristippus 

* 9iBurros is the name which 
^eff. Ndz. 307, gives him, and 
Tbid. 323, he commends him for 
rh %i/ xdpiaroy rov Tp6irov icaX trrpV' 

* See Arist. Khet. ii. 23; 
Dioff, 71, 73. See also p. 363, 3. 

« Athen, V. H. vii. 3. men- 
tions a letter of sympathy ad- 
dressed to some friends, who 
had met with a severe misf or- 
tmie. He quotes from the in- 
troduction the words: AXA' 
iyecyt 9ik» vpb^ ifias ovx &s 

bfjMs Kviroufifvovs. In theory, 
Aristippus could only estimate 
the value of friendship by its 
utility, as Epicurus did at a 
later time. .Diog. 91 : rhy ^iKov 
T^s Xp^ias €U€Ka, koX yhp fi4pos 
at&fiaros, fi^xptt ^p wapp, i<nr<i- 
(fffdai. Something similar is 
also found in Socrates, see pp. 
151, 3 ; 222, 3 ; and he employs 
the same argument Xen. Mem. 
i. 2, 54. 

• Pint. Prof, in Virt. 9, p. 80. 
» JHoff. 70 ; iStob. Floril. 19, 6. 

• Stob, Floril. 20, 63. 

^ See the adventure with 
^schines in Plvt, Coh. Ira. 14, 
p. 462, IHog. 82, which Stob. 
Flor. 84, 19, probably by mis- 
take, refers to the brother of 

" Stob. Floril. 37, 25: 'Apl- 
<rrinros ipayruBflsrl ii^io$a;6fKurr6y 
iffTty iv r^ /3^^; hfBpaitos iitieitcfjSf 
eTirc, ical n4rpios, Srt [hi or 5(rT«y?] 
iy TTitWots ^irdpxoty fMxOfipoTs ov 

• Which is told by Diog. 71. 
Few of the anecdotes about 
Aristippus rest on good author- 
ity. Agreeing, however, as they 
all do, in portraying a certain 
character, they have been used 
as the material for a historical 
sketch. They may be spurious 
in parts, but on the whole they 
give a faithful representation of 
the man. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


appears to have been a man of high feelings and a Chap. 
cultivated mind, a man knowing how to preserve 

calmness and freedom of mind in the perpetual 
change of human aflfairs, how to govern his passions 
and inclinations, and how to make the best of all the 
events of life. The strength of will which can beard 
destiny, the earnestness of high feelings intent upon 
great ends, and strictness of principles may not be 
his ; but he is a proficient in the rare art of content- 
ment and moderation, while the pleasing kindness 
and the cheerful brightness of his manners attract far 
more than the superficial and eflfeminate character of 
his moral views repel. ^ Nor are these traits purely 
personal ; they lie in the very nature of his system, 
requiring as it does that life should be directed by 
prudence. Theory and practice cover one another 
quite as much with Aristippus as with Diogenes, and 
in the case of each one may be explained by the 

From Socrates indeed both are far enough D. Pod- 
ren\oved. His was a theory of a knowledge of con- ^^rsyg- 
ceptions ; theirs a most downright subservience to *^^ *^ 
tiie senses. His was an insatiable thirsting for know- Socrateg, 

> Even Cicero, who ia not ge- iis, qui bene dicta male Inter- 

nerally his friend, says (Off. i. pretarentur : posse enim asotos 

41, 148), that if Socrates or ex Aristippi, acerbos e Zenonis 

Axistippus placed themselves in schola exire. The same is attri- 

antagonism with tradition, they buted to Zeno by Ath. xiii. 666, 

ought not to be imitated there- d, on the authority of Anti- 

in : magnis illi et divinis bonis gonus Carystins : those who mis- 

banc licentiam assequebantur ; understood him, might become 

and he also quotes (N. D. iii. 31, vulgar and depraved, KaBhrfp ol 

77) a saying of the Stoic Aristo : rijy 'Apiariirwov iraptv^xOttfrts ai- 

nocere audientibus philosophos ptffiuts &(r«rot icoi BpoffcTs, 

B B 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap, ledge^ an untiring critical exercise ; theirs a total 
renunciaticHi of knowledge, an indifference to aU 
theoretical enquiries. His was a scrupulous conscien* 
tiousnesB, an unconditional submission to moral re- 
quirements, an unceasing toiling of man upon him- 
self and others ; theirs was a comfortable theory of 
life, never going beyond enjoyment, and treating even 
the means thereto with indifference. On his side 
were self-denial, abstemiousness, moral strictness, 
patriotism, piety; on theirs were luxurious indul- 
gence, mischievous versatility, a citizenship of the 
world needing no country, and a rationalism needing 
no Gods. Nor yet can it be allowed that Aristippus 
was only a degenerate pupil of Socrates, or that his 
teaching had only been touched surfece-deep by that 
of his master. Not only was he classed among fol- 
lowers of Socrates by the unanimous voice of antiquity, 
which, no doubt, had more immediate reference to 
his external connection with him ; not only did he 
always call himself a pupil of Socrates and regard his 
teacher with unchanging devotion ^ — a proof stronger 
than the former, and showing that he was aHe to 
appreciate the greatness of his friend ; but his phi- 
losophy leaves no doubt that the spirit of his teacher 
had in him been mightily at work. The intellectilal 
convictions and the intellectual aims of Socrates he 
did not share ; ^ Socrates, on the one hand, straining 

* See above, p. 337, 5. teaching of Aristippus into 

* Hermo/n/i/Cs remarks (On closer connection with that of 
Hitter's Dar. d. Socr. Sys. 2% ; Socrates, do not appear satia* 
Gesch. d. Plat. Phil. 263), in- factory, even when supported 
tended to bring the intellectual by the additional arguments in 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



every nersre to attain to knowledge ; Aristippus, on 
the other hand, denying that knowledge was possible; 


his Ges. Abh. 233, nor are thej 
regarded as such by Ritter, 
Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 106. Her- 
mami thinks that Aristippus 
was only lacking in the reli- 
gious and moral tone of So- 
crates, but that he steadily ad- 
hered to his logical principles. 
v<So CTates declared al l jud^^me nts 
to berelati£e»A &d only con cep- 
1 tjnnaJto_ J2e nTiTyftrsa U j_ vaThd ; 
in the same way, thejQyrenaics 
deni ed only th/'uiuYfilsal, va^ 
: ndity o jLjSdgmftataM but not 
\ ^hftt. f)f p,nnfiftptions ; f^r they 
> allQ2[fidLthato alL.m.e.n.Te,fiei,Ye 
i from thfi^ame things the same 
• impressionS | as to the names^ 
j wmcF"£Eey were agreed] These 
names, however, were identical 
with the conceptions of So- 
crates, conceptions having been 
by them as by the Cynics and 
Megarians reduced to empty 
names and deprived of all real 
substance. There is indeed a 
noticeable advance in entirely 
separating conceptions from 
appearances, and in more pre- 
cisely defining the highest good 
as the first judgment univer- 
sally valid. But in the first 
place it never occurred to So- 
crates to deny the universal 
validity of judgments ; and it is 
as certain that he allowed uni- 
versally valid judgments as that 
he allowed universally valid 
conceptions — such, for instance, 
as *A\1 virtue is knowledge,' 
* every one pursues the good ; ' 
Wdif he called some judgments 
relative— such as, * This is good,' 
— it is no less certain that he 

declared the corresponding cent 
ceptions — for instance, that of 
the good — to be relative. In 
the next place it is equally un^ 
true to say that the Cyrenaics 
only denied the universal var 
lidity of judgments but not that 
of conceptions; for they de- 
clared most emphatically that 
all our notions only express our 
personal feelings. They did not 
even allow that all feel the 
same impressions in the same 
way : unless in this passage we 
are to understand by impres- 
sions, feelings themselves, in 
which case this language would 
be as unquestionable as it would 
be unmeaning; but they main- 
tained that we cannot know 
whether others have the same 
feelings as ourselves. And that 
they practically admitted the 
common meaning of names the 
use of which they could not 
of course deny, is of little ac- 
count ; for they left it an open 
question, whether common im- 
pressions and notions corre- 
sponded to these names. It will 
be seen at once what has be- 
come of the advance which 
Hermann finds in Aristippus. 
A decided distinction between 
conceptions and appearances 
can least of all be attributed to 
the Cyrenaics, seeing that they 
know of nothing but appear- 
ances ; and it will appear, after 
what has been said, to be 
equally a mistake to say that 
* Pleasure is the highest good ' 
is the first judgment univer- 
sally valid. 

B B 2 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap. Socrates taking up a new position and a new method 
• of gaining knowledge ; Aristippus allowing of no 
knowledge which does not serve a practical end.' 
Still he was in a great measure indebted to his teacher 
for that critical skill with which we can readily credit 
him,^ and for that unprejudiced sobriety which cha- 
racterises his whole bearing. 

The same may be said of his moral teaching and 
conduct. How far in this respect he was below So- 
crates is obvious. Yet in truth he was nearer to him 
than will be readily believed. ^^0iu:ttie one hand, 
Socrates, as we have seen, madc ditilityi he ground of 
moral duties. Might not Aristippus then believe 
that he was not deviating from Socrates as to the 
final end in view, if he in some respects held a dififer- 
ent opinion from his instructor as to the means to a 
pleasant life ? On the other hand, there was about 
Aristippus much which is truly Socratic — that com- 
posure with which he rises above circumstances, that 
independence with which he is master of himself and 
his surroundings, that unbroken cheerfulness which 
engenders a kindliness of feeling, that quiet assurance 
which grows out of confidence in the strength of 
mind. Knowledge is with him the most important 
element. By culture and prudence he would make 

> We cannot accordingly be known, to have arrived at a 

agree with Brandis, Gr. Rom. conclusion opposite to that of 

Phil. ii. a, 96, who says: Ari- Socrates, 

-stippus appears to have held * See Xen. Mem. ii. 1 ; iii. 8, 

linn to the view that the im- and the stories told by IHoff, ii. 

pulses to action must be found 13 ; compare Athen. xi. 608, c, 

within the sphere of knowledge; on the form of dialogue obser- 

and, in investigating what can ved in his writings. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


men as independent of external circumstances as their Chap. 

. XIV. 
nature allows of. Nay, so far does he go in this 

direction that he not unfrequently trenches on the 
ground of the Cynics.^ In reality his School was also 
internally connected with theirs. Both Schools pro- / 
pose to philosophy the same problem, how to acquire 7/*^* ^ ^ ' ' 
f( practical culture,* rather than theoretical knowledge. 
JJotbriterefore, neglect logical and physical enquiries, 
iustifjing their procedure by thfiorifia, based it is true 
on diflFerent principles, but leading in the end to the 
same^sgepticial results. Hoth in their ethics compass 
the same aim — ^the emancipation of man by means 
of prudence, and the raising him above outward things 
and events. One thing only makes them opponents — / , 
their pursuing this common end by means the most ; 
opposite. The Cynic school follows the path of self- , 
denial, the Cyrenaic that of self-indulgence; the Cynic ' 
dispenses with the outer world, the Cyrenaic employs ; 
it for its own purposes.^ The object of both Schools 
being, however, one and the same, their principles 
come back again to the same point. The Cynics de- 
rive the highest pleasure from their self-denial ; Ari- 
stippus dispenses with property and enjoyment, in 
order the more thoroughly to appreciate them.* 

* This relationship appears in clearer, Wendt (Phil. Cyr. 29) 

the tradition which attributes quotes the contradictory state- 

the same utterances at one time ments of Antisthenes and Ari- 

to Aristippus, at another to stippus in Diog. ii. 68, vi. 6. 

Diogenes. . Antisthenes says that to philo- 

' The standing expression is sophy he owes rh B^vaaBcu iavr^ 

waiZtta, and what they say in 6/ii\e?i', Aristippus, rh ^{fveurBM 

favour of it is much to the same vwri Ba^^o^vrws biiiKetv. 
effect. See what has been said, ^ Hegel, Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 

pp. 294 and 360, 4, 6. 127. See above pp. 308 and 

To make this difference 364. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap. For a Bimilar reason their attitude towards politi- 

• cal life and religious traditions is a kindred one. 
Conscious of his mental superiority, the individual 
withdraws himself frqm the external world, needing 
no country, nor feeling himself fettered by the be- 
liefs of his countrymen ; and troubling himself &r 
too little about others to attempt any moulding in- 
fluence on either the sphere of politics or that of 
religion. Thus, despite their sharp differences, there 
is a family likeness between these Schools betraying 
their common descent from the Socratic philosophy 
alloyed with Sophistry. 

Certainly it must be granted that Aristippus 
diverged far more from the original ground of the 
Socratic teaching than did Antisthenes. The utili- 
tarian view of life, which with Socrates was only an 
auxiliary notion in order to commend to the reflecting 
mind the practice of morality, was here raised to be 
a leading thought, the knowledge of Socrates being 
pressed iuto its service. Philosophy became with 
Aristippus, as with the Sophists, a means for further- 
ing the private objects of individuals. Instead of 
scientific knowledge, only personal culture was pur- 
sued and regarded as consisting in knowledge of the 
world and in the art of enjoyment. The scanty 
remarks of Aristippus on the origin and truth of our 
impressions, borrowed for the most part from Pro- 
tagoras and ultimately leading to a wholly un-Socratic 
destruction of all knowledge, were only intended as 
helps to moral doctrines. If not altogether annihi- 
lated, the deeper meaning of the Socratic philosophy 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


was here at least subordinated to what with Socrates Chap. 

was a bare outwork, and almost an obstruction to his * 

leading thought. Granting that Aristippus was not 
a false follower of Socrates,^ he was certainly a very 
one-sided follower, or rather he^ among all the fol- 
lowers of Socrates, was the one who least entered into 
his master's real teaching. 

Side by side with this foreign element, the genuine Pinius 
Socratic teaching cannot be ignored in the Cyrenaic %J[^l"^' 
school. In that school there are in fact two elements, 
the combination of which constitutes its peculiarity. 
One of these is the doctrine of pleasure as such, the ) ' . ', , . - ^, 
other, the limitation of that doctrine by the Socratic | 
demand for intellectual circumspection — ^the principle ; f ^" ' 
that prudence is the only means for arriving at true! 
pleasure. The former element, taken alone, would 
lead to the conclusion that sensual enjoyment is the 
only object in life ; the latter, to the strict Socratic 
doctrine of morals. By uniting both. elements Ari- 
stippus arrived at the conviction — which is stamped 
on all his language, and on which his personal cha^ 
racter is a standing comment — ^that the surest way 
to happiness is to be found in the art of enjoying the 
pleasures of the moment with perfect freedom of soul. 
Whether this is indeed possible, whether the two 
leading thoughts in his system can be harmonised at 
all, is a question which it seems never occurred to 
Aristippus. We can only answer it in the negative. 
That freedom of soul, that philosophic independence 

' As Sohleiermaoher maintains, Gesch. cL Phil. 87. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, at which Aristippus aimed, can only be secured by 
' soaring above the impressions of the senses and the 

particular circumstances of life to such an extent that 
happiness becomes independent of these surroundings 
and feelings. Conversely, when the enjoyment of the 
moment is the highest object, happiness can only be 
felt in proportion as circumstances give occasion to 
agreeable feelings; all unpleasant impressions being 
disturbers of happiness. It is impossible to abandon 
the feelings freely to the enjojrment of what is pre- 
sent, without at the same time being disagreeably 
aflfected by what is unpleasant. Abstraction, whereby 
alone this might be done, is distinctly forbidden; 
Aristippus requiring the past and the future to be 
ignored and the present only to be considered. Apart 
therefore from other defects, this theory suflFers from 
contradiction in its fundamental principles, the in- 
jurious effects of which for the whole system could 
not fail to follow. As a matter of fact they soon 
appeared in the teaching of Theodorus, Hegesias, and 
Anniceris ; hence the interest which the history of 
the later Cyrenaics possesses. 
E. Th>e About the same time that Epicurus was giving a 

demies' ^^^ '^^"^ ^ ^^® philosophy of pleasure, Theodorus, '^ 
(1) Theo' Hegesias, and Anniceris, within the Cyrenaic School, 
were advocating views partly agreeing with those of 
Epicurus, partly going beyond his doctrine of plea- 
sure. Theodorus, on the whole, adhered to the prin- 
ciples of Aristippus, not hesitating, unscrupulous as 
he was, to push them to their most extreme conse- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




quences.* The value of an action dependiog upon 
its results to the doer, he concluded that any and 
every action might under circumstances be allowed. 
If certain things pass for immoral, there is a good 
reason why this should be so, if the masses are to be 
kept within bounds : the wise man, tied by no such 
prejudice, need not, in suitable cases, be afraid of 
adultery, theft, and sacrilege. If things exist for use, 
beautiful women and boys are not made only for 
ornament.^ Friendship, it seemed to him, may be 
dispensed with ; for the wise man is self-suflBcing 
and needs no friends, and the f9ol can make no 
sensible use of them.^ Devotion to one's country he 
considered ridiculous ; for the wise man is a citizen 
of the world, and will not sacrifice himself and his 
vrisdom to benefit fools.* The views of his School 
respecting the Gods and religion were also expressed 


* Bpwrvraros is the term used 
of him by Diog, ii. 116; and 
this epithet is fully justified by 
a passage like that, vi. 97. 

2 Di^. ii. 99, That Theo- 
doras said this and similar 
things, cannot be doubted after 
the definite and explicit testi- 
mony of Diogenes. It is trae 
that, in Plwt. Tranq. Anim. 5, 
p. 567, Theodoras complains 
that his pupils misunderstood 
him— a statement which, if it 
be trae, probably refers to the 
practical application of his 
principles. He may have led 
a more moral life than Bio 
(IHoff, iv. 63 ; Clemens, Psedag. 
15, A.), and yet have expressed 
the logical consequences of the 

Cyrenaic teaching. But it is 
undoubtedly an exaggeration 
to charge him, as Epiphanim 
(Expos. Fid. 1089, A.) does, 
with inciting to theft, perjury, 
and robbery. 

' Diog, 98, and Epiphanivi$^ 
1. c. in still stronger terms : 
ieyaBhv lUvov fXeyt rhy c&5cu/io- 
vovPTOy <l>t6y€tv (1. 0avAoy) ?€ rhp 
ivcrrvxovrraf khv f ffoiftds' Ktd 
ttlperhp tlvai rhy &4^poya irXoutriop 
ivra Kol kwu&vi (&ira0^7) This 
statement, likewise, seems to 
be .rather in the nature of a 
hasty conclusion, for Theodoras 
makes happiness depend on in- 
telligence, and not on things 

< Diog. 98, Epiph. L c 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




without reserve ; * Bio * and Euemerus ^ herein fol- 
lowing his example. For all that, the theory of 

> The atheism of Theodorus, 
whidi, besides bringing down 
on him an indictment at 
Athens, gained for him the 
standing epithet &0cot (he was 
called 9^hi according to Diog. 
ii. 86, 100, in allusion to a joke 
of Stilpo's, but probably icot* 
kmi^aaiv for JiBfos)^ will be fre- 
quently mentioned. In Diog. 
97 he says : ^y . . . irarrhraaiv 
hvaipSnf rks irtpX Ot&y Z6^as * 
Kol abrov irtpt/rr^x^f*^^ fi^k^^^ 
iir lyty pafiix€vtp irepl Btav ovk 

'EvlKovpov xA^trra rk<rr« 
€iT€ii'. The last statement can 
only apply to the criticism of 
belief in the Gods generally, 
for Epicurus* peculiar views 
about them were certainly not 
shared by Theodorus. Sext. 
Pyrrh. iii. 218; Math. ix. 51, 
55, mentions him among those 
who deny the existence of the 
Gods, with the addition : Si^ 
TOW irepl $€uv avyrdyfiaros rk 
wapk rois 'EXXriai $€o\uyoiifif»a 
^oikIKoos dyouTKcvdUraf. Cio. (N. 
B. i. 1, 2) says : nuUos [Deos] 
esse omnino Diagoras Melius 
et Theodorus Cjnrenaicus puta- 
verunt. Ibid. 23, 63: Nonne 
aperte Deorum naturam sustu- 
lerunt ? IHd. 42, 117 : Omnino 
Deos esse negabant, a statement 
which Mimus. Fel. Oct. 8, 2, and 
Laet. Ira Dei, 9, probably re- 
peat after him. Likewise Plut. 
Comm. Not 31, 4, p. 1075, says : 
Even Theodorus and those who 
shared his t^iews did not de- 
clare God to be corruptible, 
iAA* OVK MfrrtvffM ws liTTi ri 
&fl>$aprov, IJpiph. (Expos. Fid. 

1089, A.) also asserts that he 
denied the existence of a God. 
In the face of these agreeing 
testimonies, the assertion of 
ClmMM (Pffidag. 15, A.), that 
Theodorus and others had 
wrongly been called atheists, 
and that they only denied the 
popular Gtods, their lives being" 
otherwise good, can be of little 
weight. Theodorus no doubt 
denied the Gods of the people 
in the first place, but it was 
not his intention to distinguish 
between them and the true God. 
The anecdotes in Diog. ii. 101« 
116, give the impression of in- 

' Diog. iv. 54: voXKhi, l\ mi 
iiOti&rtpov rpoffi^ipero ro7s dfU' 
Aov<ri Tovro e^<&pfiov &iroXa^ 
(Tos • but in Ms last illness he 
was overcome with remorse, 
and had recourse to enchant- 
ments. The argument quoted 
by Sen. Benef. vii. 7, 1, to 
prove that every one and that 
no one commits sacrilege is 
more a rhetorical and intellec- 
tual work of skill. 

' The view of Euemerus re- 
specting the Gods is briefly as 
follows : There are two kinds of 
Gods — heavenly and incorrup* 
tible beings, who are honoured 
by men as Gods, such as the 
sun, the stars, the winds ; and 
dead men, who were raised to 
the rank of Gods for theix 
benefits to mankind. Diodorua 
in Mm. Pr. Ev. ii. 2, 52. To 
the latter class of beings Eue- 
merus referred the whole of 
Mythology, and supposed it to 
be a history of princes and 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Aristippus did not altogether satisfy him. He was 
fain to admit that pleasure and pain do not merely 
depend on ourselves and our inner state, but also in 
a great measure on external circumstances ; and he 
th^efore sought such a definition of the highest 
good as should secure happiness to the wise man, 
and make that happiness dependent on his prudence.* 
This result, he thought, would be reached if happi- 
ness were made to consist, not in individual plea- 
sures, but in a cheerful state of mind — and con- 
versely evil, not in individual feelings of pain, but in 
an imhappy tone of mind ; for feelings being the eflfects 
of impressions from without, states of mind are in our 
own power.^ Accordingly, Theodorus asserted that 
in themselves pleasure and pain are neither good nor 
bad ; gnojnfissmTigjatff in phftftrfnlnftgH^virm sadneSB ; K 
the former proceeds, from prudence, the latter from 
folly; therefore pursue prudence and justice, eschew 


princesses, Uramis, Cronus, 
Zeus, Rhea, &c. For further 
particulars respecting this ra- 
tionalising history of the Gods, 
consult SteinhaHfAJlg. Encyclo. 
Art. Euhemerus. * V. Sieroka, 
De Euhemero. 

' These reasons are not men- 
tioned in so many words, but 
they follow from Theodorus* 
positions about the highest 
good, and also from the stress 
which, according to IHoff. 98, 
he laid on the ahrdpKeia of the 
wise man, and the difference 
he made between wisdom and 

« Probably what de. (Tusc. 
iii. 13, 28; 14, 31) quotes as 

Cyrenaio doctrine belongs to 
Theodorus : that not every evil 
engenders sorrow, but only un- 
foreseen evils, that many pre-) 
cautions can be taken to pre- 
vent sorrow by familiarising 
ourselves with the thought of 
future evils. What control of 
outward impressions he con- 
sidered possible by prudence, 
appears also from the explana- 
tory remarks in Stob, FloriL 
119, 16 ; the wise man has 
never sufficient reason to put 
an end to his own life, and it 
is inconsistent to call vile the 
only evil, and then to put an 
end to life to avoid the au£* 
ferings of life. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




(2) Hege- 

ignorance and wrong-doing.* Occasionally he him- 
self displayed a fearlessness and an indifference to 
life* which would have done honour to a Cynic. 
Not that the theory of pleasure was therewith sur- 
rendered, but the older setting of that theory was 
changed. In place of individual pleasures, a state 
of mind was substituted, independent of the mere 
feelings of enjoyment and pleasure. Instead of a 
cheerful resignation to the impressions of the mo- 
ment, the highest good was made to consist in rising 
superior to circumstances. 

Hegesias went a step further. He, too, adheres 
to the general maxims of Aristippus. With him 
good is identical with pleasure, evil with unhappi- 
ness : all that we do, we do only for ourselves ;. if 
services are rendered to others, it is only because 
advantages are expected in return.' But on looking 

> Diog. 98 : t^\os 8* &it€Xdii$wt 
XapAy Kcd Xvn'fiw r^v ijukv iiti 
<l>povii(r€if r^v V M iuftpoa^rp * 
&7a0d Hh <pp6vn(nv koX ^ucoutxHrpr^v, 
KaK\ 8^ TJts ivamias c^cis, iiitra 
tk Tiloif^v icol 'ir6vov. That justice 
should be reckoned among 
good things may be brought 
into agreement with what is 
quoted p. 266, 3. It is to be 
recommended, because it pro- 
tects us from the unpleasant 
consequences of forbidden ac- 
tions, and from the disquiet 
which the prospect of these 
consequences produces, al- 
though such actions are not in 
themselves inadmissible. 

* When at the court of Ly- 
simachus, he so enraged the 
]iatter by his frankness {Diog, 

102; Plut. ExiL 16; PAiZt;, Qu. 
Omn. Pr. Tib. p. 606, 884, C.) 
that Lysimachus threatened to 
crucify him, upon which Theo- 
dorus uttered the celebrated 
saying, that it was indifferent 
to him whether he went to 
corruption in the earth or in 
the air. do. Tusc i. 43, 102 ; 
Valer. Max, vi. 2, 3 ; Plut. An. 
Vitios. 3, p. 499 ; Stoh, FloriL 
2> 23, attribute another saying 
to him on the same occasion, 
attributing to Anaxarchus the 
above passage in Stoh. Floril. 

* Diog, ii. 93 : ol 8^ ^WyntriMtoX 
Xty6fitvot ffKOTobs fikv cTx^v tohs 
a^ohs iiBov^v Koti irSvov, fi'hrt 9k 

€V€pytffiaVf 8ut rh fi^ 8i' odri raSra 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


round to discover wherein true pleasure is to be Chap. 


found, Hegesias met with no very consoling answer. , * " 
Our life, he says, is full of trouble ; the numerous 
suflFerings of the body aflfect the soul also, distiprbing 
its peace; fortune in numberless ways crosses our 
W'ishes ; man cannot reckon upon a satisfactory state 
of mind, in a word, upon happiness.^ Even the 
practical wisdom, upon which Aristippus relied, af- 
fords to his mind no security ; for perceptions, accord- 
ing to the old Cyrenaic maxim, not showing us things 
as they are in themselves, if we are always obliged to 
act according to probabilities, who can be sure that 
our calculations will come true ? ^ And if happiness 
cannot be had, it is surely foolish to try for it^ 
enough if we can but fortify ourselves against the 
sufferings of life ; freedom from pain, not pleasure, 
is our goal.* Yet how may this goal be reached in 
a world where so much trouble and pain flails to our 

cupcur6at iiyAs ahrk, aXXd 8icl rds p. 343, 1. 

Xf>e(as ainds [probably auTwi'], * IHog, 95 : h.v(ipow Z\ iral tAs 

&u air6innv ^ij8* iK^Xva ^vdpxui'. aitf^trcts ovk h.Kpi^ol(ras r^v iri- 

Ibid. 95 : r6v re tro^hif iavrov yvntriv^ rSov r* ^h6y<a% ^tuyofidvwp 

€V€Ka vdma irpd^€w ' ovS4»a ykp irdyra irpdrreiy. We insert this 

iiyuffdai r«y i\\uv Mffris (i^iov E|^ntence in the connection of 

atr^ • khv Tctp tA fiiyiara 8ok^ the doctrine of Hegesias, where 

irapd Tov Kopvova-dai, fi^ cTvot it most probably belongs, with- 

ivrJ^ia &v ain-hs vapdffxV' Epiph, out, however, unconditionally 

Exp. Fid. 1089, B., says the guaranteeing for it this rela- 

same, but less accurately. tion. 

* i)iog. 94 : t^j' c&Sai/ioWav • IHog. 95 : r6v re ao^hv obx 

tX»i iJi^tvarop tJycu * rh fihv ydip oUtm irKtovdiretv iy rp ruv iryaBmf 

ir&ixa irokkQv ivaveirXTJ^Oat iroOi}- a{p^<rc(, &s iv Tp rS»v kokSov 4>vy^9 

HjdrnVy r^v 5^ ^vxhv avfivaBtiv rtXos Ti$4fuvov rh /i^ iviir6pws Q» 

r^ ff^fiari Koti rapdrrttrOcu, r^iv /ii}8i Xvmipcis * h 8^ ntpiyhtffBcu 

9h r6xv^ iroWk r&v Kwr* iXirita roi$ ii9iwt>opifi(raa'i,irtp\r^irot7yriKk 

£tf\^€iv • &<rr€ 5t^ ravra ii^- rrjs ^5oi^s. 
ttpKTOV r^y §itfiMfiovlav that. See 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap. lot ? Clearly not at all as long as peace of mind 


depends upon external things and circamstances ; 
contentment is only then sure, when we are indif- 
ferent to everything which produces pleasure or pain.^ 
These, as Hegesias observes, depend ultimately, 
not upon things, but upon our attitude towards 
things ; in itself nothiag is pleasant or unpleasant, 
but makes a varied impression, according to our 
tone and condition.* Neither riches nor poverty 
affect the happiness of life; the rich not being 
happier than the poor. Neither freedom, nor slavery, 
hi^ nor low rank, honour nor dishonour, are condi*^ 
tions of the amount of pleasure we receive. Indeed, 
life only appears a good thing to a fool ; to the wise 
man it is indifferent.^ No Stoic or Cynic could more 
sternly denounce the value of external things than 
the pupil of Aristippus here does. With these prin- 
ciples is connected the noble and thoroughly Socratic 
maxim that faults do not call for anger, nor human 
beings for hatred, but only for instruction, since no 
one intentionally does what is wrong ; * desiring what 
is pleasant, everyone desires what is good ; and as 
the wise man does not allow his peace of mind to 
depend on things external, neither does he allow it 
to be ruffled by the faults of others. 

* See preceding note. bably only bears the sense 

* Diog. 94 : <l>{urei t' obhlv ^8J» given in the text. Similarly 
^ hfih vze^Afificivott ' 8iA 5^ JEpipIianius, 1. c. ; conf . p. 343» I. 
ffirdvLfy ^ ^fvifffibv ^ K6piv robs * Ibid, : kkeyott ret kfutpriifuata 
ftjkv ^ZinBoii TOi;y 5* anhm ^X**" flvyryf (6iui?s rvyx^iv^w ' oh yiip 

' IHd. 95 : KoX r^ ixhv &(ffpoyi Mptu kfxaprdv^y, aXXd rtvi 
rh Qv Xw<nT«\is, clyat, t^ h\ irdBfi KarriyayKaerfi4yoy ' 'moI /^^ 
ippovlfjup aZd^poy ' which pro- ikur'hff^LV, fiaWoy 5^ /iCT«Si5^{<(ir. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


In the theory of Hegesias it is seen more decidedly Chap. 
even than in that of Theodonis, that the doctrine of ' .. 

pleasure is unsatisfactory. It is even expressly ad- 
mitted that human life has ahout it more of sorrow 
than joy, and hence a perfect indifference to things 
outward is insisted upon. But what right has Hege- 
sias to identify pleasure with the good, and pain with 
evil ? After all, the good is that which is the conr 
dition of our well-being; if this be indifference 
rather than pleasure, indifference and not pleasure 
is the good ; the doctrine of pleasure has come round 
to its opposite — the Cynic independence of everything 
external. Not that the Cyrenaic school could avow 
this as its general principle without surrendering its 
own position ; still it is distinctly avowed within that 
school that pleasure is not in all cases the highest 
motive. Anniceris indeed maintained that the aim (3) Anni- 
of every action is the pleasure resulting therefrom ; ^^"** 
and, like the older Cyrenaics, he would not hear of a 
general aim of life, nor substitute freedom from pain 
in the place of pleasure.^ He observed too that by 
pleasure only our own pleasure can be understood ; 
for of the feelings of others, according to the old 

> ClemsnSf Strom, ii. 417, B. : statement in Diog. ii. 96 : ol V 

ol Z\ *Avviic4peioi KaKoiyxvoi . . . *AwtWpctM riL fihv &X\a Karit 

rod fjukv 8Xow ^iov r4\os ott^hv to&tA robots — ^the School of 

&pi<rfi4voy (Sra^ay, iKda-rris dh Hegesias — and also the asser- 

wpd^tm t^iov {urdpx^w r4\0Sf r^v tion (Suid. 'AwU.) that Anni- 

hc rrii rpd^eon irfpiywofi4y7iv ceris, although living, accord- 

^^ov^y, oZroi ol KvpvvaXKol rhv ing to Snidas, in the time of 

Zpop T^$ iiBovrjs 'Eiriicoi^pou, tout- Alexander, was an Epicurean. 

4<rrt T^y rod itXyovmos dir€|o(- Cicero and Diogenes likewise 

pfirtPf h.$trovffi vtKpov Kardtrr aciv affirm that his School declared 

inroKoXovin-fs. Seep. 364, 1. This pleasure to be the good, 
would justify the inaccurate 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




teaching of his School, we can know nothing.' Yet 
pleasure is not only caused by enjojrments of the 
senses, but by intercourse with other men and by 
honourable piumiits.' Hence, Anniceris allowed to 
firiendship, gratitude, feimily affection, and patriotism 
an independent value, quite apart from the benefit 
resulting from these relations. He even went so 
£Etr as to say that the wise man would make sacri- 
fices for them, nor would his happiness suffer from his 
so doing, even if there remained to him but little 
actual enjoyment.' This admission brought him 
round to the ordinary view of life, to which he ap- 
proximated still further by attaching less value to 
prudence, the second element in the Cyrenaic doctrine 
of morals, than Aristippus had done. In fact, he 
denied that prudence alone is sufficient to make us 
safe and to raise us above the prejudices of the 
masses ; there must be practice as well, to overcome 
the effect of perverse use.* 

' Diog. 96: Tf\v re tow ^i\ov 
MaifJLOviav 8i* ahr^iv fi^ tlvcu 
ikperiitfy firidh yhp aiffdirr^v if 
ir4\as frKdpx^iv, See p. 350, 1. 

« Clemens, 1. c. continues : 
Xalpeiv yhp ^/nof fi^i fi6vov M 
v^ycus, &XX^ KoX M 6fii\l<us koI 
ix\ <f»i\(nif4.lats. Comp. Cic. Off. 
iii. 33, 116. See p. 347, 2. 
The expression in Clement, r^p 
iK rris wpd^tMS vepvyivoftivyiv 
^lov^t; probably refers not only 
to the pleasure resulting from 
an action, but to the pleasure 
immediately bound up there- 

» Diog. 96 : kir4\vKov tk Kai 

yoy4as n^i^y Koi Mp warpi^os rt 

7rpd^€iv. SOcf, 9ih ravra khv oxA^- 
<rcts i.vali4^7i7ou 6 ffofphsy odScv 
^TTOv cdScu/iOj^o-ci, Kttp 6\iya rfi4a 
irepc7^iHjTOi avr^. Ibid. ^7 : r6tf 
re ^i\ov M^ 8(^ ras XP^^^ fiSpop 
iaroS4x^trBai, &y ^oKeiwowr&v /ilf 
iiriirrp4<^9<r6ai, * &XA^ koL vapA r^p 
yryowTay ttivoiav $s ci^cira Kot 
ir^vovs vwofiweiVf koI rot riBifjiwov 
ifiov^v t4\os Kal iix06fi€voy M t^ 
or4pt<rBat ahriis tftots ^Kowriws 
^Ofitytiy Hih rV '"'pbi rhy iptKoy 

* Ibid. 96 : fi^ tlyal rt aindpKJi 
rhy \6yoy vphi rh Octf^aou iral 
T^T rcoy woW&y 8(${i|r ^€pdye0 
y€y4ff0au' 9k7y 8* iivt0l(f<r0at 9i& 
r^y iK iroWov ffwrpapMov ijfuy 
<l>a6krjy 9id$«iny, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Thus the Cyrenaic doctrine is seen gradually to Chap. 

vanish away. Aristippus declared that pleasure was 
the only good, understanding by pleasure actual en- 
joyment, and not mere freedom from pain ; and, 
moreover, making the pleasure of the moment, and 
not the state of man as a whole, to be the aim of 
all action. One after another these limita,tions were 
abandoned. Theodorus denied the last one, Hegesias 
the second, and even the first was assailed by Anni- 
ceris. It thus appears how impossible it is to com- 
bine the Socratic demand for prudence and indepen- 
dence of the external world, with the leading thought 
of the theory of pleasure. The Socratic element 
disintegrates that theory and brings it round to its 
opposite. The process, however, taking place with- 
out intellectual consciousness, no new principle 
results therefrom. Oddly enough the very men in 
whom this result is most apparent, in other respects 
clung to the doctrines of Aristippus with the greatest 


c c 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 






A. Ineon^' 


of the iwtr- 




Inconsistencies appear to have been common to all 
the Socratie Schools. It was, without doubt, an in- 
consistency on the part of the Megarians to confine 
knowledge to conceptions, and at the same time to 
do away with all possibility of development and with 
anything like multiplicity or definiteness in concep- 
tions ; to declare that being is the good, and, at the 
same time, by denying variety and motion to being, 
to deprive it of that creative power which alone can 
justify such a position ; to begin with the Socratie 
wisdom, and to end in unmeaning hair-splitting. 
It was an inconsistency on the part of Antisthenes 
to endeavour to build all human life on a foundation 
of knowledge, whilst at the same time destroying all 
knowledge by his statements touching the meaning 
and connection of conceptions. It was no small in- 
consistency both in himself and his followers to aim 
at a perfect independence of the outer world, and 
yiet to attribute an exaggerated value to the externals 
of the Cynic mode of life ; to declare war against 
pleasure and selfishness, and at the same time to 
pronounce the wise man free from the most sacred 
moral duties ; to renounce aU enjoyments, and yet 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


to revel in the enjoyment of a moral self-exaltation. Chap. 
In these inconsistencies and in their miintentional ^^' 
-contradictions appears the unsatisfactory nature of 
the principles from which all these Schools started. 
It is seen how far they were removed from the per- 
fect moderation, from the ready susceptibility of 
-mind, from the living versatility of Socrates, aU 
clinging to particular sides of his personal character, 
but unable to comprehend it as a whole. 

The same fact will also, no doubt, explain that S- Time 
'tendency to Sophistry which is so striking in these morefoU 
philosophers. The captious reasoning of the Mega- ^^\^/ 
rians, the indifference of the Cynics to all speculative thanofthe 
knowledge, and their contempt for the whole theory ^P^'*^^' 
of conceptions, no less than the doctrines of Aristip- 
vpus relative to knowledge and pleasure, savour more 
of the Sophists than of Socrates. Yet .all these 
-schools professed to follow Socrates, nor was there 
one of them which did not place some element of the 
Socratic philosophy at the head of its system. It 
is therefore hardly correct for modem writers to find 
•nothing but sophistical views in their teaching, sup- 
plemented and corrected by what is Socratic, and, 
instead of deducing their differences from the many- 
sidedness of Socrates, to refer them to the diversities 
of the Sophists converging from many sides towards 
the Socratic philosophy as a centre.^ With decided 

* K. F. Hermann, Ges. Abh. to be regarded as a corrective, 

• 228, who, amongst other things modifying more or less strongly 

there says that the agreement their fundamental views de- 

in matter between these schools rived from the Sophists; they 

.and the Socratic teaching ought are the pioneers of advancing 

cc 2 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Chap, admirers of Socrates, such as Antisthenes and Euclid^ 
there can be not even a shadow of support for this 
view. Such men conscientiously aiming at a faiths 
ful reproduction of the life and teaching of Socrates^ 
must have been conscious that to him they were first 
indebted for an intellectual centre, and that fsom 
him they had first received the living germ of a true 
philosophy ; — ^indeed this may be clearly observed in 
their philosophy. In their case it is wrcmg to speak 
of the ennobling influence of Socrates on sophistical 
principles ; we ough t rather to speak.of the influence 
of sophistry on their treatment of the teaching of 
Socrates.. Socrates, as it were, gave the substance of 
the teaching, sophistry being only a narrower limita- 
tion of it; for this reason a School like th^ of" the 
Stoics was able in the end to connect itself with thjit 
of the Cynics. 

With Aristippus the case is somewhat diflFerent. 
Yet even in respect of him it has been already 
established, not only that he professed to be a fol- 
lower of Socrates, but that he really was one, although 
he penetrated less than others into the deeper mean- 
ing of the founder's teaching, and showed the influ- 
ence of sophistical views most plainly. If then. 

sophistry, endeavouring to act with the proof of the differ- 
as an eqnipoise to Socratic ence in principle between the 
teaching, &c. Yet this remark Eristic of the Sophists and 
agrees ill with those steps in that of Megara. (Ges. Abh. 250, 
advance of Socrates which f.) Far more correct and more^ 
Hermann thinks to discern in in keeping with our view was 
many sophistical assertions of that expressed by Hermann at 
Antisthenes and Aristippus an earlier time. (Plat. 257.) 
(see pp. 296, 1 ; 370, 2), and 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


l>esides lower capacities, previous sophistical training Chap. 

•may be the cause which prevented the founders of ' 

the imperfect Schools from entering so deeply or 
fully into the spirit of their master as Plato did, it 
should also be remembered that Socrates himself 
gave occasion to this variety in the Schools which 
'Were connected with him. On the one hand, his 
personal character afforded so rich a field as to invite 
investigation in the most opposite directions ; on the 
other hand, the scientific form of his philosophy was I 
so imperfect and so unsystematic, that it gave scope i 
for many diverging modes of treatment.* 

This disintegration of the Socratic Schools is c. im- 
^iccordingly not without importance for the further ^T^^' 
progress of philosophy. Bringing out the separate wh^wU, 
•elements which were united in Socrates, and connect- 
ing them with the correspoi^ding elements in the pre- 
Socratic philosophy, it held them up for more careful 
observation. The problems were set for all sub- 
sequent thinkers to discuss. The logical and ethical 
ijonsequences of the Socratic maxims were brought 
to light. On the other hand, it was seen what the 
reparation of the various elements in the teaching 
of Socrates, and their combination with other 
theories, would lead to, unless these theories were 

* do, de Orat. iii. 16, 61, quasi familiae dissentientes in- 

observes with some justice, but ter se, &c. For instance, Plato 

somewhat superficially : Cum and Antisthenes, qui patien- 

essent plures orti fere a Socrate, tiam et duritiam in Socratico 

quod ex illius variis et diversis sermone maxime adamarat, and 

et in omnem partem difhisis also Aristippus, quem iliac ma- 

-disputationibus alius aliud ap- gis voluptarias disputationes 

prehenderat, proscminatte sunt delectarant. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, first recast after the mind of Socrates. In this way 
' the one-sidedness of the smaller Socratic schools 

was indirectly instrumental in enforcing the demand 
for a comprehensive treatment which should connect 
the dififerent aspects of the Socratic philosophy more- 
closely with each other and with earlier systems, and 
decide the importance of each one relatively to the 
rest. In both ways these Schools influenced Plato 
and Aristotle, Euclid supplying to Plato the basis 
for his theory of ideas, Antisthenes and Aristippus 
' the groundwork for his theory of the highest good. 
Of greater importance is the fact that those fol- 
lowers of Socrates prepared the way for the course 
taken by philosophy after the .time of Aristotle- 
|sj Ji X ?^® .^ ^\ is that the post-Aristotelian systems are 
■"^ not immediately connected with the imperfect 
Socratic Schoolsj and that those systems would 
have been impossible without Plato and Aristotle ;: 
still it must not be forgotten that these thinkers 
are also deeply indebted to the Socratic Schools^ 
The predominance of practical over intellectual- 
interests which the post-Aristotelian philosophy dis- 
plays ; the moral contentment with which the wise 
man, withdrawing from everything external, falls 
back upon the consciousness of his freedom and 
virtue ; the citizenship of the world which can dis- 
pense with a country and political interest — all these 
peculiarities of later times are foreshadowed in the 
lesser Socratic Schools. The Stj^ adopted the moral 
principles of the Cynics almost in their entirety, only 
softening them down and expanding them in applica- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


tion. The same School l ooks for its logic chiefly to the Chap. 
Marians besides Aristotle. From the School of 
Megara too the scepticism of Pyrrho and the Academy 
branched off, albeit in a somewhat different direction. 
The teaching of Aristippus reappears in Epicurus, 
only changed in some details. In short, tendencies, 
which at an earlier period could only secure a qua- 
lified recognition, obtained the upper hand when 
strengthened, recast, and supplemented by other 

Yet even this was not possible until the intellec- 
tual strength of Greece had abated, and her political 
condition had become so far hopeless as to favour 
the view that indifference to everything external 
could alone lead to peace of mind. Previously the 
intellectual sense had been too quick, and the Greek 
spirit too keen, to allow the hard-won results of the 
Socratic philosophy to be thus frittered away. That 
philosophy according to its deeper bearings must 
needs issue in a science of conceptions such as was 
set forth by Plato and Aristotle. 

Only by separating the various but inwardly con- 
nected elements of the Socratic teaching, only by 
confounding the form in which Socrates clothed his 
teaching with that teaching itself, and mistaking 
defects in manner for defects in matter, could phi- 
losophy be limited to metaphysics so abstract and 
a criticism so empty as the Megarian, to morals so 
unintellectual and absolutely negative as those of 
the Cynics ; or could the doctrine of Aristippus pass 
for truly Socratic. Whilst therefore these Schools 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chap, are not without importance for the progress of 
1 Greek philosophy, their intellectual productions can- 
not he valued very highly. A truer understanding 
and a more comprehensive treatment of the Socratic 
philosophy, was the work of Plato. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Academy, older, 50; connected 
with Plato, 61 ; new, 4 

Accusation, the, of Socrates, 193 

^schines, view of Socrates, 76 ; 
assigns the reason for the con- 
demnation of Socrates, 211 ; a 
disciple of Socrates, 245 ; his 
prose preferred by some to that 
of Xenophon, 245 

^schylus, illustrating the state of 
thought in the fifth century, B.C., 
6 ; on the boundary line between 
two periods, 9; difference be- 
tween, and Sophocles, 12 ; con- 
trasted with Euripides, 16 

^thiops, a pupil of the elder Ari- 
stippus, 342 

Agatho, the dainty elegance of, 

Alcibiades, of Plato's, 78 ; allows 
that the discourses of Socrates 
seem rude, 80; fascinated by 
Socrates, 183, 184 ; his connec- 
tion with Socrates, 207, 214, 
219, 221 

Alexinus, a native of Ells, notorious 
for his captiousness, 253; two 
arguments of his known, 268; 
attacked by Menedemus the Ere- 
trian, 282 

Anaxagoras, his teaching referred 
to by Euripides, 19 ; proves that 


spirit alone can make a world out 
of matter, 42 ; teaching known 
to Socrates, 57; extravagant 
theories of, 135 ; Ms view of God 
as the Reason of the world, 176 ; 
his atheism charged on Socrates, 

Ancient morality, relation of So- 
crates to, 226 

Anniceris, a Cyrenaic, pupil of 
Antipater, 343, 376, 379, 385 

Antigone of Sophocles, 13 

Antipater, a Cyrenaic, pupil of the 
elder Aristippus, 342 ; Hegesias 
and Anniceris his pupils, 343 

Antisthenes, theory of, dangerous 
to the popular faith, 229 ; founder 
of a Socratic School, the Cynic, 
247, 284, 291 ; a native of Athens, 
284 ; rejects every combination 
of subject and predicate, 277 ; 
holds that the One alone exists, 
279; the teacher of Diogenes, 
286 ; his character, 291 ; ex- 
presses himself in favour of cul- 
ture, 293; his nominalistic 
theory, 297 ; prefers madness to 
pleasure, 306 ; how led to his 
views, 307 ; allows that some 
kinds of pleasure are good, 308 ; 
makes virtue consist in know- 
ledge, 310, 311 ; considers mar- 
riage imnecessary, 320 ; censures 
popular government, 322 ; doubts 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




popular faith, 327; assails my- 
steries, 329 ; makes happiness 
the end of philosophy, 346 ; de- 
viates from teaching of Socrates, 
374 ; inconsistencies of, 386 

Anjrtns, the accuser of Socrates, 
193; his dislike for Socrates, 
203 ; based on some supposed 
personal injury, 205, 206, 207 ; 
a leading democrat, 211 ; a vio- 
lent opponent of the Sophists, 
218 ; supposed to uphold ancient 
morality, 231 

Aphrodite, story of, in Euripides, 

ApoUonius of C>Tene, sumamed 
Cronos, 261 

Apology, 101 ; the language of 
Socrates in, 79 ; sifting of men 
described in, 125 ; cautious lan- 
guage of, on a future life, 153 ; 
moi^ considerations dwelt on 
by Socrates in his, 185 ; proves 
that popular opinion about So- 
crates agreed with the picture 
drawn by Aristophanes, 216 ; 
Xenophon's, 205 

Archilaus, teaches that the spirit 
returns to the ether, 19 ; falsely 
said to have been a teacher of 
Socrates, 57 

Archipylus, an Elean philosopher, 

Arete, daughter of the elder Ari- 
stippus, 341 

Arginusae, state of public feeling 
after battle of, 207; Socrates 
hazarded his life to save the 
victors at, 226 

Aristides, the time of, 231 ; sup- 
. posed relationship of, to So- 
crates, 62, ». 

Aristippus, connection of his teach- 
ing to that of Socrates, 155 ; doc- 
trine of, 392 ; founder of a Socra- 
tic School, the Cyrenaic, 247, 337 ; 
independent in character, 339 ; 
his pupils, 341 ; the Cyrenaic 


doctrine his, 344 ; studied Ethics- 
exclusively, 346 ; thinks happi- 
ness the end of philosophy, 347» 
376, 386 ; considers enjoynaent 
an end in itself, 347, 376 ; theory 
of highest good, 391 ; develop- 
ment of his leading thoug^ht, 
348 ; considers feeling produced 
hy internal motion, 362 ; con- 
duct and views of, 352, 361 ; a 
free-thinker, 367; greatly in- 
debted to Socrates, 368 ; not a 
degenerate pupil of Socrates, 
370, 376; has many Socratic 
traits, 372 ; dispenses with 
property and enjoyment, 373;. 
devlates further from Socrates 
than Antisthenes, 374 ; his scanty 
remarks on the origin of im*> 
pressions, 374; his principles, 
adhered to by Theodorus, 379 ; 
and by Hegesias, 380 ; teaching 
reappears in Epicurus, 392 

Aristippus the younger, grandson 
of the elder Aristippus, 341 ;. 
his pupils, 342 

Aristophanes, illustrating the pro-- 
blem of philosophy, 29 ; an 
enemy of innovation, 29, 108,. 
114, 217, 218 ; his play of the 
* Clouds ' supposed to have been 
suggested by Anytus, 203, 206- 
[see Clauds] ; considered So- 
crates a dangerous teacher, 207 ;. 
opposes him on patriotic grounds, 
209 ; charges Socrates with So- 
phistic display, 221 

Aristotelian distinction between, 
philosophy and convention, 312 

Aristotle, his physical discussions, 
45 ; subordinate to metaphysics, 
40; expands the conceptional. 
philosophy of Socrates, 42, 47, 
128 ; adheres to Idealism, 41, 
49 ; his criticism of Plato's 
Ideas, 49 ; his ethical views, 46 ; 
the ripe fruit of Greek philoso- 
phy, 60; influenced by imper- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




. feet Schools, 60 ; introduces in- 
ductive method, 129 ; his notices 
of Socratic philosophy, 101, 104, 
137 ; a^ee with those of Plato, 
181, 182 ; and supplement those 
of Xenophon, 183 ; his view of 
the chief merit of Socrates, 132 ; 
attacked by Eubulides, 251 ; de- 
nies that any propositions are 
false, 301 ; gives logic to the 
Stoics, 391 

Aristotle of Cyrene, a contem- 
porary of Theodore, 344 

Aristoxenus, account of Socrates, 
68, n, ; disparaging, 70, 2 

Asceticism of Neoplatonists, 46; 
of Antisthenes, 306; of post- 
Aristotelians, 45 

Asclepiades removes Elean School 
to Eretria, 280 

Asiatic, the state of Xenophon an 
A. kingdom, 244 

Aspasia, teacher of Socrates, 67 ; a 
friend of Socrates, 166 

Athenian polish, 73 ; taste, 80; de- 
mocracy, 169, 194, 223 ; popular 
men, 29 ; people victims, 30 ; 
tragedians, 4 

Athenians, 198, 211, 228 ; guilt of, 
233, 234 ; repentance of, 201 

Athens, central position of, 3; 
legendary history of, 28; plague 
of, 28 ; citizens of, 31 ; their ad- 
vantages, 31 ; state of, after 
Peloponnesian war, 28, 29, 30 ; 
intellectual movement going on 
at, 54, 66, 183 ; the abode of So- 
crates, 193, 230 ; state of public 
opinion, 234 ; political intrigues 
of, 61; not governed by Sophists, 
204; fall of, 218; old constitu- 
tion re-established by enemies 
of Sophists, 219 ; ancient glory 
of , 219 ; Gods of, 214 ; Aristippus 
led to Athens, 337 

Atomists, views of, known to Socra- 
tes, 57 

Atreus, story of house of, 8 


Attic prose, models of, 246 ; philo-^ 
sophy, 32 

Authorities for the philosophy of 
Socrates, 101, 106, 181, 184 ; for 
Megarian philosophy, 249 

"pACCHwSJ, of Euripides, 17 

Bacchylides illustrating the pro- 
blem of philosophy, 21 

Bacchus, story of birth of, 17 

Being and Becoming, Megarian 
view of, 269 

Bio, the Borysthenite, a Cyrenaic^ 
pupil of Theodore, 343, 378 

Brucker's time, a turning point in 
estimate of authorities for So- 
crates' life, 99 

Bryso, son of Stilpo, 255 


Cato's view of the condemnation 
of Socrates, 206 

Cebes, 246 

Character of Socrates, greatnesa- 
of , 70 ; peculiar features in, 77 ; 
Grecian peculiarities in, 74, 96 

Characteristics of the Socratic phi- 
losophy, 102 

Charges, imfounded, against So- 
crates, 220 ; charges against his 
political views, 213 ; against his- 
moral and religious views, 214 

Charmides, a disciple of Socrates, 

Chronology of the life of Socrates,. 
53, ». 1 

Chrj'sippus, blames Menedemus 
and Stilpo for plausible fallacies, 

Civil life, 166; renunciation of,, 
by Cynics, 319 

Cleon, 210, 30 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



dinomachns, 251 

Clytsemnestra, of .Sschylus, 13; 
of Euripides, a doubter, 18 

* Clouds,' the, of Aristophanes, 
suggested by Anytus, 203, 206 ; 
attack Socrates as a Sophist, 
210, 215 ; scope of, 214 ; portrait 
in, 215, 61, n. 1. 

Comedians, illustrating the pro- 
blem of philosophy, 29 

Conceptions, theory of, characte- 
ristic of the Socratic Era, 39, 
40, 109 ; importance of, for So- 
crates, 131 ; defined, 41 ; com- 
mon to Plato and Aristotle, 42 ; 
developed, 47 ; formation of, 
128 ; proof by, 128, 130; rejected 
by Euclid, 259 ; developed to 
Nominalism by Cynics, 297 [see 

Condemnation of Socrates, 198 ; 
causes of, 202 ; not the work of 
the Sophists, 202; not due to 
personal animosity, 205 ; real 
causes of, 213 ; justice of, 220 

Connus, reputed teacher of So- 
crates, 56, 1 

Contemporaries, relation of Socra- 
tes to, 231 

Conviction, personal, insisted on 
by Socrates, 227 

Corinth, 251 

Corybantic mysteries, 33 

Crates, a pupil of Diogenes, 288 ; 
speaks approvingly of culture, 
293; displays art, 334 

Critias, Sophistic moralising of, 
211 ; fascinated by the wisdom 
of Socrates, 183 ; a pupil of 
Socrates, 221 ; the most unscru- 
pulous of the oligarchs, 211 

* Crito,' the, of Plato, 152 

Cronos, surname of Ai)ollonius, 
251 ; and of Diodorus,252 

Custom, distinction between, and 
philosophy, 312 

Cynicism, traces of, in Stili)o's 
moral teaching, 276, 277 


Cynics, 284 ; history of , 284 ; teach- 
ing of, 291 ; morality of, 160, 
301 ; practice of, 314 ; influence 
on the world, 331 ; go back to 
Eleatic doctrine, 248 ; depreciate 
knowledge, 295 ; Nominalism 
of, 300; declare contradiction 
impossible, 301 ; negative side 
of morality, 310 ; positive side, 
312 ; good and evil, 301 ; virtue, 
310 ; wisdom and folly, 313 ; re- 
nunciation of self, 315, 358, 370 ; 
renimciation of society, 319, 
379 ; the family, 320 ; civil life, 
322 ; immodesty, 326 ; rejection 
of religion, 276, 327 ; their views 
combined with those of Mega- 
rians by Stilpo, 275, 284 ; said 
to have studied Ethics exclu- 
sively, 344 

Cynic School, a development of 
the Socratic, 50, 162, 247 ; f oUows 
the path of self-denial, 373 

Cyrenaics, 337 ; history of, 337 ; 
teaching of, 344 ; go back to 
Protagoras, 248; practical life 
of, 361 ; position of their system, 
369 ; relation of their philosophy 
to Socrates, 369, 374 ; of their 
moral teaching, 372 ; of their 
political views, 374 ; later, 376 ; 
general position of, 346 ; view 
of happiness, 45, 346 ; importance 
attached to feelings, 346, 352, 
358 ; doctrine of pleasure, 160, 
352; the highest good, 354; 
modified view of, 356 ; consider 
sill notions relative, 348; as- 
sumed a sceptical attitude to- 
wards knowledge, 348, 351 ; deny 
that any pleasures are bad in 
themselves, 356 ; admit degrees 
of pleasure, 357 ; happiness not 
the satisfaction of animal in- 
stincts, 359 ; philosophy how 
connected with Euemerus, 367; 
employ outer world for their 
own ends, 373 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Cyrenaic School, a development of 
the Socratic, 60, 247 ; separate 
branches of, 343 ; views advo- 
cated within, 376 

Cyrene, 251 

Gyropaedeia, the, of Xenophon, 

Cyrus, expressions of the dying, 
179, 242 ; intimacy of Xenophon 
with, 212 

A AIMONION, of Socrates, 66, n, 1, 
81 ; false views of, 82 ; not a 
genius, 82; regarded as a pri- 
vate oracle, 84, 89, 96 ; its field 
limited, 90 ; instances of its in- 
tervention, 86 ; not the same as 
conscience, 91 ; philosophical 
view of, 94 ; said to be substi- 
tuted for God, 220 ; its position 
in relation to the popular belief, 

Damon, reputed teacher of So- 
crates, 56, n, 1 

Death of Socrates, 200, 201 ; re- 
sults of, 235 

— Socrates' view of, 179 

Defence of Socrates, 196, 197 

Delos, sacred ship, delays the 
execution of Socrates, 201 

Delphic oracle confirms Socrates in 
his course of life, 60, and n. 3, 
122, n. 1 ; God, 108 

Demetrius Poliorcetes, 277 

Demosthenes, a pupil of Eubulides, 

Depreciation of knowledge by Cy- 
nics, 291 ; limits to, 293 

Destruction, views of Diodorus 
on, 272 

Details of the trial of Socrates, 

Dialectic, a criticism of what «, 
133; the art of forming con- 
ceptions, 39 ; a characteristic 
of Socratic period, 40 ; the foun- 
dation of Plato's system, 39 [see 
Conceptions, Knowledge] 

Dialectical tendency supreme in' 
Socrates, 39 

Didactic poetry illustrating philo- 
sophy in fifth century, B.C., 21 

Dike, ^schylus' conceptions of, 8 

Dioclides, 251 

Diodorus, captiousness of, 269; 
views on Motion, 269; on De- 
struction, 272 ; on the Possible, 
272; sumamed Cronos, 252; 
teacher of Philo, 254 

Diogenes, initiates Stilpo into 
Cynic doctrine, 263 ; a native of 
Sinope and pupil of Antisthenes, 
287 ; uses expressions in favour 
of culture, 293 ; recommends 
justice, 308; his asceticism, 
320 ; averse to marriage, 321 ^ 
allows marriage of relations,. 
322; Plato's view of, 331 ; theory 
and practice overlap with, 369 

— , testimony of, to line of argu- 
ment pursued in Euclid's time, 

Diotima, teacher of Socrates, 57, 1 

Dissen, view on authorities for 
Socrates' life, 100 

Dodona, doves of, 26 

Droyosen, view of Aristophanes,. 
217, n. 

EDUCATION of Socrates, 65, 56^. 
n. 1,3,4; 57, w. 1, 3 

Egyptian priestesses inHerodotus,. 

Elean-Eretrian School, 279-283; 
history of, 279; teaching of, 

Eleatic doctrine of the One and 
AH, 264, 265; difference be- 
tween sensual and rational 
knowledge, 260; revived by 
Cynics, 248 ; also by Megarians, 

Eleatics, subtleties of, 255; doc-^ 
trines of, 284 

Electra of Euripides, 16, 17 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Elis, 253 

Elysium, received notions re- 
specting, 24 

EmpedocleSy views of, known to 
Socrates, 67 

Epicharmus, 21 

Epicurean view of happiness, 45 ; 
apathy, 46 

Epicureanism, an outcome of 
Cyrenaic School, 50 

Epicureans, on the attainment of 
knowledge, 45; make personal 
conviction the standard of truth, 
116 ; fond of slander, 70 

Epicurus, placed the highest good 
in freedom from pain, 364 ; 
gave a new form to the philo- 
sophy of pleasure, 376 ; doctrine 
of Aristippus reappears in, 391 

Eristic, Megarian, 285 ; that of 
Euclid, 266 ; of Eubulidea, 268 ; 
of Alezinus, 268; of Diodorus, 
269 ; of Philo, 273 ; of Stilpo, 

Eros, a passionate attachment 
grounded on aesthetic feeling, 
76 ; described, 124, 125, 165 

Eretrians, 283 

Ethics, the substance of the teach- 
ing of Socrates, 132-148, 172, 
242 [see Morals] ; exclusively 
studied by Aristippus, 345 

Eubulides, captiousness of, 267; 
writes against Aristotle, 251 ; 
the teacher of Demosthenes, 261 

Euclid, an intelligent thinker, 1 56 ; 
fascinated by the attractions of 
Socrates, 183; founder of a 
Socratic School, the Megarian, 
247, 249, 266; makes use of 
Eleatic doctrines, 259, 265; 
influenced by Heraclitus, 259 ; 
sees true being in incorporeal 
species, 259; a counterpart to 
Plato, 259 ; rejects the Platonic 
Ideas, 260 ; denies that capacity 
exists beyond the time of exer- 
cise, 261 ; substitutes the Good 


for the One of Parmenides, 262 ; 
rejects explanation by analogy, 
265 ; eristic of, 265 ; denies mo- 
tion, 272 ; makes virtue consist 
in prudence, 304 
Eudaemonism of Socrates, 158» 160 
Euemerus, the Greek rationalist, 
a pupil of Theodore, 343, 378 ; 
connection with Cyrenaics pro- 
blematical, 367 
Eumenides of ^schylus, 9, 13, 16 ' 
Euphantus, a pupil of Eubulides, 

Europa, rape of, in Herodotus, 26 
Euripides, illustrating the state 
of thought in the fifth century, 
B.C., 6, 14 ; sceptical verses of, 
232; a kindred spirit of the 
better Sophists, 15 ; contrasted 
with iEschylus, 16 ; a rational- 
ising poet, 17 ; despiser of pro- 
phecy, 17 ; tragic movement in, 
Euthydemus, his view of injustice, 

Evenus, reputed teacher of So- 
crates, 56, 1 

FAMILY, renunciation of, by 
Cynics, 320 

Fichte, idealism of, not the ideal- 
ism of Plato, 43 ; criticism of 
Kant, 158 

Fr6ret, view of the condemnation 
of Socrates, 203, 204 

Friars, resemblance of, to Cynics, 

Friendship, 163-165 [see Brot] 

* Frogs,' 215 

GOD, the oneness of, recognised 
by Socrates, 176 ; conceived 
as the Reason of the world by 
Socrates, 176 ; forethought of, 
177; identified with the Good 
by Euclid, 263 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Oods, Socrates charged with re- 
jecting the, of his cormtiy, 213 ; 
Cynic views of, 327 

Good, the object of knowledge, 
147 ; practically determined by 
custom and utility according to 
Socrates, 149; Megarian doc- 
trine of, 262 ; placed in apathy 
by Stilpo, 277 ; identified with 
Gk)d by Euclid, 263 ; Cynic doc- 
trine of Good and Evil, 301 ; 
Cyrenaic view of the highest 
good, 354 

Gorgias, Plato's, 152 

, doubts of, 189, 218, 265; 

criticism of, 265 ; a teacher of 
Antisthenes, 285, 295, 327 

Grecian peculiarities in the teach- 
ing of Socrates,''74, 320 

^Greece, sweeping changes in, 2; 
free states of, 3 ; gods of, in- 
sulted by Persian expedition, 8 ; 
mental development of, 35 ; 
change in inner life of, 184 ; 
moral life of, 226 ; attention of, 
directed to logical criticism, 

•Greek, mode of, thought, 186, 230 ; 
morality, 226, 229, 242 ; faith, 
229 ; problem proposed to phi- 
losophy in Socrates' time, 2 ; 
life involves a contradiction, 7 ; 
morality debased, 76; peculiar- 
ity, 166 ; progress of, 392 ; pre- 
judice against manual labour, 

■Grote, view of Socrates and the 
Sophists, 187, 188, 189 

Gyges, story of, 26 

HECUBA in Euripides, 17 
doubts of, 18 
Hegel's view of the 9aifi6yioy, 96 
view of the relation of Socrates 
to the Sophists, 187, 190; con 
siders attitude of Socrates op' 
posed to old Greek morality, 226 


Hegesias, a Cyrenaic pupil of An- 
tipater, 343, 376 ; adheres to 
the maxims of Aristippus, 380 ; 
considers life fuU of trouble, 
381 ; identifies pleasure with the 
good, 383 ; denies the position 
of Aristippus, 385 
Helen, story of, 26 

Hellas united, 3 

Heraclitus, doctrines of, conveyed 
to Sicily by Sophists, 4 ; views 
of, known to Socrates, 57 ; idea 
of God, 176 ; early scepticism 
of, 243 ; view of the phenomenal 
world, 259 ; his doctrine of the 
perpetual flux of things, 350 

Hercules, patron saint of the Cy- 
nics, 306 ; a doubter in Euri- 
pides, 18 

Hermse, mutilation of, 207, 214 

Herodotus, exemplifying the state 
of culture in Greece in fifth 
century, B.C., 24 ; piety and 
credulity of, 25, 27 ; a friend of 
Sophocles, 24 ; but a doubter, 26 

Hesiod, verses of, quoted by So- 
crates, 222 

Hiero, the, 244 

Hipparchia, a Cynic, wife of Crates, 

Historians, illustrating the pro- 
blem of philosophy in the fifth 
century, B.C., 24 

Homer, verses of, quoted by So- 
crates, 212; stories criticised 
by Herodotus, 26 ; explained 
by Antisthenes, 330 

Homed, the, fallacy, 269 

Hypothetical Sentences, view of 
Philo on, 274 

ICHTHYAS, the successor of 
Budid, 250 
Ideal, Socrates not an insipid, of 

virtue, 74, 203 
Idealism, 39 ; beginnings of, in So- 
crates, 42 ; of Aristotle, 43 ; of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Plato, 48; Fichte's sabjective, 

Ideas of Plato, 48, 137 
Ignorance, conacioiisness of, the 

fiist lesnlt of self-knowledge, 

Immortality of the Soul, Socrates* 

• view of, 178 
Importance of Socratic teaching, 

Individual independence insisted 

on by Socrates, 161 ; by Cynics 

Induction necessary to form con- 
ceptions, 129 
Inflnenceof Socrates explained, 186 
lo, wanderings of, 26 
Iphigenia of Euripides, 16 
Irony of Socrates, 126 
Ldon, story of, 8 

JUSTICE of the condemnation 
of Socrates considered, 218 

KANT proves immortality of 
sotd by utilitarian argument, 
157 ; resembles Socrates in po- 
sition, 138, ». 1 ; contradiction 
in, 157 
Knowledge, true, only gained by 
conceptions, 42, 109 [see Con- 
ceptions] ; virtue consists in, ac- 
cording to Socrates, 140; de- 
preciated by Cynics, 292; So- 
cratic search for true, 124, 108, 
n. 1 ; 109, n. 2 ; moral value of, 
— of Self, the Socratic, 121 
Kvpu6f»v, the fallacy called, 273 

LAITJS, story of, 8 
Leonidas, 77 
Life of Socrates, 52 
Literature, the problem of philoso- 
phy solved by, 4 

Love for enemies in Socrates, ITO 

Lyoo, the aocoser of Socrates, 194 


limmnu^ ri^Ft of Socrates, 125 

MAN, Socrates' view of the dig- 
nity of, 178 

Marathon, stem race f ong^ht at,. 
10, 230; the remembraiu^ of, 
inspires Aristophanes, 29 

Meaning of words, Philo's view 
of, 274 

Means, relation of, to ends in na- 
ture, 172 

Megara, plunder of, 277 ; Idealism 
of School of, 42 

Megarian School, 253, 284; an 
imperfect expansion of Socratic 
principle, 50, 247 ; founded by 
Euclid, 249 ; primarily critical, 
253 ; history of, 249 ; doctrine 
of, 255 ; approximated to Cyni- 
cism, 279 ; merged in Cynicism, 
283; teaching, 255, 258, 269;: 
starting point of, 259 ; develop- 
ment in, 264 

Megarians, go back to Eleatio 
doctrine, 248 ; captious logic of, 
160, 265, 266; their views of 
Being and Becoming, 259 ; of 
the Good, 263 ; agree with Plato, 
260; attack popular notions, 
264; fond of fallacies, 267 r 
later, indebted to Cynics, 275, 
277 ; inconsistencies of, 386 

Meiner's view of sources of So- 
cratic authority, 99 

Meletus, the accuser of Socrates, 
193, 203, 205, 206 ; said to have 
suggested the * Clouds ' to Aris- 
tophanes, 203 ; hesitates to ac- 
cuse Socrates of Sophistry, 221 ; 
a defender of ancient morality, 

* Memorabilia,' the, of Xenophon, 
72, 75, 78, 102, 132, 167, 183 

Menedemus, 281 ; attempts of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Alexinus to entangle, in falla- 
cies, 269 ; removes Elean School 
to Eretria, 280 ; directs atten- 
tion to moral questions, 281 

Menedemns, a later Cynic, 290 

Menippus, a later Cynic, 290 

Meno's question whether virtue is 
obtained by exercise or instruc- 
tion, 313 

Method of Socrates, 113 

Metrodes, brother of Hipparchia, 
a Cynic, 289 

Military service of Socrates, 66, 
n. 2 

Miltiades, time of, 231 

< Mirror,' the, of Cebes, 246 

Moderation, the, of Socrates, 72, 
74, 161 

Modesty suppressed by Cynics, 

Monimus, a Cynic, expresses him- 
self in favour of culture, 294 

Moral importance of theory of 
conceptions, 113 ; particular 
moral relations discussed by 
Socrates, 160 

Morality, practically determined, 
according to Socrates, by cus- 
tom and utility, 149 ; inconsis- 
tency of Socrates, 151 ; super- 
ficisily treated by Socrates, 151 ; 
relation of Socrates to older 
morality, 226; relation of So- 
crates to cotemporary morality, 
Morals of the Cynics, 301 
Moschus, an Elean philosopher, 

Motion, view of Diodorus on, 269 
Myrto, the supposed wife of So- 
crates, 61, 62, n. 
Mysteries, spread of, after Pelo- 
ponnesian war, 32 

NATURE, view of, foreign to 
Socrates, 135, 137 ; held by 
Socrates, 172-175 ; studied by 


pre-Socratic philosophers, 39 

Neoplatonism the coping-stone of 

Greek philosophy, 61 
Neoplatonists, resort to higher 

revelations, 46 ; their asceticism, 

46 ; later philosophers, 105 
Neopythagoreans, 35 
New Academy, time of, 4 
Nicias, superstition of, 28 
Niobe, story of, 8 
Nominalism of Cynics, 297, 300 

iiT^DIPUS Coloneus' of Sopho- 

Uj cles, 13 
Olympic goddess, 9 
Olympus, inhabitants of, derided, 

Orphic traditions, 19 ; mysteries, 


■pANiETIUS, rejected writings 

X of Simmias and Cebes, 246 

Paris, story of, questioned in Euri- 
pides, 17 ; in Herodotus, 26 

Parmenides, teaching known to 
Socrates, 57, 58; followed by 
Euclid, 260; reduced action 
and passion to the sphere of the 
Becoming, 260; discovered a 
contradiction in the Becoming, 
261 ; attributes assigned by him 
to real being, 262 ; proved his 
position directly, 265 

Party, Socrates not the victim of 
a political, 211 

Pasicles, a Megarian, younger than 
Eubulides, 251 

Peloponnesian War, Thucydides* 
history of, 27 ; increasing spread 
of mysteries about time of, 32 ; 
views of Socrates fixed about 
time of, 61 ; fall of Athens in, 
218 ; period after, 231 

Pericles, art in the time of, 3, 10 ; 
the age of, 28, 54 

Peripatetic School, 50 ; connected 

D D 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




with Aristotle, 51 ; strlcttues 
on Socrates, 70 

Persian War, achievements of, 3 ; 
unexpected result of, 8 ; Socrates 
bom in last years of, 63 

Persians, battles with, 6 

'Phaedo,' Plato's, 69, 137 

Phaedo, the founder of a Socratic 
School, the Elean-Eretrian, 247, 
279 ; a native of Elis, 279 ; the 
favourite of Socrates, 280; his 
opinions, 281 

«PhaBdrus,'the, 79 

Philo, a Megarian and pupil of 
Diodorns,254, 273 ; his captious- 
ness, 273 

Philolaus, Simmias and Cebes pu- 
pils of, 246 

Plulosophic Schools, permanence 
of, 51 

Philosophy, problem proposed to, 
in fifth century, B.C., 2 ; problem 
solved by politics, art, and reli- 
gion, 2-34 ; progress of, in fifth 
century, B.C., 35 seq. 

Physical Science not dispensed 
with by Plato, 45 

Physics, ethics substituted for, by 
post-Aristotelian philosophy, 43 

Pindar, illustrating the problem 
of philosophy, 22, 23: respect 
for natural talent, 23 

Plato, Writings of, 99 ; his dia- 
logues, 100, 181, 183 ; most his- 
torical of, 170; his * Apology,* 
179, 215 ; on the Megarians, 
257 ; agrees with, 260 ; and Xeno- 
phon as authorities, 99; de- 
scribes Euclid's method, 266 

— , EJig portrait cf Sonrates, 101 ; 
calls Socrates the wisest and 
best of men, 73 ; praises his 
social virtues, 75 ; describes him 
as a perfect thinker, 105 ; speaks 
of his peculiar moderation, 75 ; 
his use of the term Eros, 76 ; 
his singularity, 77 ; his outward 
appearance, 78; the apparent 


shallowness of his discourses^ 
80; speaks of the 9€u/i6yuir of 
Socrates, 84, 85, 87, 89 ; speaks 
of Socrates' attitude towards 
natural science, 137; veils the 
shallowness of Socrates' theory 
of virtue, 155 ; mentions what 
told most against Socrates at 
the trial, 205, 207, 217; asso- 
ciates Socrates with Aristo- 
phanes, 210, 216 ; his language 
about Anytus, 203, 205, 206; 
value of Plato's testimony con- 
sidered, 91, 92 ; his agreement 
with Xenophon, 92, 154, 171j 
181, 188 ; with Aristotle, 137 

— , Philosophy €ff considered So- 
crates a deep thinker, 96; his 
system the fruit of Socrates^ 
138, 187 ; but more developed, 
41, 141, 392 ; influenced by im- 
perfect Socratic Schools, 50, 51 ; 
regards species as living f orces, 
260 ; dialectic, 270 ; the founda- 
tion of his system, 40 ; his 
idealism, 42, 48, 49; advance 
from sensible beauty to moral 
beauty, 46 ; essential concep- 
tions found in all things, 131 ; 
his teaching concerning the 
State, 46, 169 ; his physical in- 
quiries, 45 ; reality of concep- 
tion, 47, 59 ; difference between 
him and Airistotle, 49 ; the 
bloom of Greek philosophy, 49 ; 
influenced by imperfect Socratic 
Schools, 50 ; lus description 
of Simmias and Cebes, 246; 
speaks of Cynic definition 
knowledge as tautological, 312; 
his view of Diogenes, 331 

Platonic distinction between cus- 
tom and philosophy, 312; ideas,. 

Platonist, Menedemus said to have 
been a, 283 

Plistanus, an Elean philosopher, 
successor to Phaedo, 280 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Politics, little importance attached 

to, by Socrates, 228 
Polyenctns, said to have taken 

part in accusing Socrates, 19i, 

Poseidon, intervention of, 26 
Possible, the view of Diodorus on, 

272 ; view of PhUo, 273 
Post- Aristotelian philosophy, sub- 
stitutes Ethics for Physics, 44 ; 
one-sidedness of Schools, 47; 
extreme individualism of, 117 
Predicate, combination of subject 

and, rejected by Stilpo, 275 
Pre- Socratic philosophy resting on 
tradition, 38 ; a study of nature, 
39, 46 ; aided by Plato, 51 
Prodicus, teacher of Socrates, 67 
Progress, rapid intellectual, of So- 
cratic age, 2, 3 
Prometheus of ^schylus, 9 
Protagoras, doubts of, 18, 189, 248 ; 
negative teaching of, 248; makes 
man the measure of all things, 
116; considers all notions rela- 
tive, 350 ; considers feelings the 
residt of internal motion, 352, 
Providence, belief in natural, 174 
Providential care of God, 177 
Prytaneum, Athens the, of the wis- 
dom of Greece, 4 ; Socrates de- 
served to be publicly entertained 
in the, 200 
Pyrrho, his philosophy of doubt, 
255 ; branched off from the 
School of Megara, 391 
Pythagorean traditions, 19 ; league, 

EEALISM, knowledge of concep- 
tions expanded by Plato into, 
Beason, God conceived as the, of 
the world, 176, 262; the only 
thing which gives a value to 
life, 310 


Beisig, his view of the character 

of Socrates, 215 
Beligion, the position of Socrates 

subversive of, 229; denied by 

the Cynics, 327 
Bepttblic, Plato's, 152 
Bousseau's wild fancies, 32 

SCEPTICISM of Socratic era, 
117; in Euripides, 16, 18 ; in 
Herodotus, 26 ; in the masses, 
34 ; an outcome of Megarian 
School, 50 

Sceptics, despair of knowledge, 
45 ; imperturbability, 46 ; resolve 
truth into probability, 116 

Schleiermacher, his view of the 
iaifiSyioy, 84 ; protest against the 
preference shown for Xenoj^n, 
99 ; canon of, 100, 104 ; his ob- 
jections to Xenophon as a sole 
authority, 183 ; discovered Me- 
garian views in Plato, 256 

Self-knowledge, the Socratic, 43, 

Self-renunciation, the, of the Cy- 
nics, 315 

Sextus criticises the arguments of 
Diodorus, 271 

Sicily visited by Sophists, 4 

Sifting of men, the Socratic, 124 

Silenus, appearance of Socrates 
compared by Alcibiades to, 78, 

Simmias, a Theban, described by 
Plato as a philosopher, 246 

Simon the shoemaJser, writings 
circulated under the name of, 
spurious, 247 

Simonides, illustrating the pro- 
blem of philosophy, 21 ( his epi- 
taph on Leonidas, 77 

Sinope, the birthplace of Diogenes^ 

Society, renunciation of, by the 
Cynics, 319 ; influence of Q^ics 
on, 331 

D d2 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Socrates, age of, its inheritance, 
36 ; characteristics, 40 ; authori- 
ties for, 104 
— , Cka/ra/Jter cf, 62, 212 ; respected 
by antiquity, 70; greatness of 
character, 70 ; supposed mental 
struggles, 71 ; purity, 72 ; ab- 
stemiousness, 72, 74, 161; 
political cdurage, 73 ; courage, 
201 ; composure, 201, 363 ; pious 
faith, 235 ; greatness, 235 ; sen- 
sible, 83 ; love of society, 74 ; 
love of friends, 194, 211, 164, 
76; imbued with Greek pecu- 
liarities, 74, 76; abstraction, 
78, 81; not an insipid ideal of 
virtue, 74, 203 ; not a dry mora- 
list, 108 ; many-sided sympa- 
thies, 46 ; serious side in, 73 ; 
cultivated tact, 94 ; inward con- 
centration, 81, 96, 97 ; a Greek 
and Athenian, 74, 96 ; eccen- 
tricity, 77 ; meditativeness, 78 ; 
absence, 81 ; modesty, 67 ; sim- 
plicity of, 338 ; consciousness of 
ignorance, 121, 122, 126; flexi- 
bility, 317 ; inner life, 94 ; 
strength of will, 292; import- 
ance attaching to his person, 62, 
116; his ZaiyAviovy 81, 66, n. 1, 
82, 84, ^9, 96 ; his aim to train 
men, 114, 263; portrait, 105, 240; 
his appearance, 77 ; accuracy 
of Xenophon's description chal- 
lenged, 135 
— , comedy on, 203, 214 
' — , contemporaries of, 186 
~, MUes if, 134, 172, 240 ; amoral 
reformer, 114 ; ethical princi- 
ples derived from the Sophists, 
149; scientific doctrine of 
morals, 174; defends friend- 
ships, 163, 164 ; utility highest 
standard, 147, 372 ; value of in- 
struction, 222; highest object 
of knowledge, the Gk>od, 147, 
262, 263 ; the oneness of virtue 
and knowledge, 113, 312; re- 


quire independence from wants, 
316 ; Plato's description of, 

Socrates, followers of, one-sided 
followers, 44, 46, 51, 236, 376; 
favourite follower, 280 

— , language of, 161, 152, 163, 
184, 186 ; apparently ridiculous, 

— , Life qf, youth and early man- 
hood, 62, 63 ; date of birth and 
death, 63, n. ; education of, 56 ; 
his instructors, 66, n, ; manhood 
reached before the Sophists in- 
troduced systematic education, 
66; life beg^un in trade, 159; 
contentment and simplicity of, 
64 ; married relations, 61, 62, 
63 ; avoided public life, 66 ; his 
detractors, 70 ; respected by 
Xenophon, 72 ; military service, 
66, 2, 70 ; personal habits, 106 ; 
simple teaching, 230 ; dis- 
courses, 102, 184 ; society, 210 ; 
enemies, 207; attacks on, 193, 
206, 210, 211, 232; charges 
against, 210, 211, 220, 229; 
most fatal, 217 ; his trial, 196, 
213; condemnation, 200, 202; 
guilt, 202 ; fate, 235 ; greatness 
of, 236; death, 200, 235, 286: 
place in history, 186 

— , PUlosophy qf, 260, 263 ; ap- 
pearance at a philosophical 
crisis, 2 ; different from pre- 
Socratic, 38 ; able to take a 
comprehensive view of science, 
4 ; had no system, 47, 119, 160 ; 
begins with self-knowledge, 43 ; 
aims at life, 52; philosophical 
platform, 104 ; breaks away from 
previous philosophy, 112; how 
led to the study of philosophy, 
92 ; ground occupied by, 104, 240 ; 
understood the tendencies of 
the age, 114 ; breaks away from 
current opinions, 112 ; value 
assigned to them, 111, 129; 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




restricted to ethics, 134, 139; 
-analytical, 131 ; opposed to 
doubting, 123; his deviation 
from original ground of Greek 
thought, 231; free enquiry of, 
291 ; new mode of thought, 182 ; 
did not discourse on the All, 
134; explanation by analogy, 
266 ; maxim that virtue consists 
in knowledge, 241; makes the 
highest business of man know- 
ing the Good, 248 ; few definite 
opinions, 139 ; method, 120, 182, 
240, 241 ; methodical pursuit of 
knowledge, 106, 124, 169, 259, 
372 ; narrowness of position of, 
240 ; enunciated a new truth to 
his contemporaries, 165; con- 
vinced men of ignorance, 206 ; 
spirit of, 246, 248 ; always 
goes back to conceptions, 93, 
120, 121, 48, 264, 292, 296; 
overrated knowledge, 260; in- 
troduced dialectic, 39; ideal- 
ism, of, 42 ; view of injuring 
others, 170 ; theory of proof, 

X 131 ; chief merit, 131 ; philo- 
\^ophical greatness, 191 

So^r^s, Political views ofy 228; 
antl-^epublican sentiments, 168, 
211 ; M^h ideas of the State, 167 

— , prejudice against, 206, 208 

— , principles of, developed by 
Plato, 49, 169 

— , pupils of, 211, 236, 237, 370 

— , relation to the Sophists, 55, 67 
169, 187, 188, 189, 190, 203, 216, 

— , natural science, 124 ; value of 
geometry, 134 ; science foreign 
to, 137, 172 ; relation of means 
and ends, 137 

— , Theology of, an appendix to 
ethics, 139; Reason of the world, 
176 ; providence, 177 ; divine 
element in man, 178 

— , Writings of, 98 

^cratic philosophy, 374; asks 
What things are in themselves, 


40; different from what had 
preceded, 39; developed by 
Plato, 42, 391 ; leads to Idealism^ 
42 ; peculiar character of, 43 ; 
imperfectly represented in So- 
cratic Schools, 51 ; different 
aspects of, 390, 389; scanty 
notices of, in Aristotle, 101 ; 
knowledge the centre of, 44, 
106; disputes about the cha- 
racter of, 117 ; moral views of, 
45, 109 ; comprehensive cha- 
racter of, 47; developed, 47; 
subjective character of, 116; 
two branches of, imited by 
Zeno, 263 

Socratic School, a loose association 
of admirers, 68; a branch of, 
established by Euclid, 260 ; Cy- 
renaic branch of, 337 

Socratic Schools, imperfect at- 
tempts to expand Socratic prin- 
ciple, 60, 391 ; starting points 
for Stoicism, 50, 1, 247 ; diverge 
from Socrates, 248 ; disintegra- 
tion of, 389; cover the same 
ground as Socrates, 60; doctrine 
of pleasure finds a place in, 160 ; 
friendship defended by, 163; 
founders of, 247 ; inconsisten- 
cies of, 386; followers of So- 
crates, 387; their importance, 
389, 390; doctrine of oneness 
of virtue and knowledge, 312 ; 
independence of wants, 315 

Socratic dialogues, 169, 184 ; doc- 
trine of morals, 159 ; education, 
243; Eros, 124, 126; Ethics, 
240; idea of a ruler, 242; 
knowledge of self , 121 ; method, 
125; mode of teaching, 241; 
search for conceptions, 48 ; 
thoughts, 244 ; teaching, 169, 
182, 246; view, 48; type of 
virtue, 74; doctrine of virtue, 
140 ; conception of virtue, 147 ; 
circle, 327 ; traits in Aristippus, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Socratic teaching, various ele- 
ments in, 391 

Solon's oonstitation re-established, 

Sophist, Socrates taken for a, 210 ; 
meaning of the term, 190 ; An- 
tisthenes in the capacity of, 

* Sophistes,* the, of Plato, 266 

Sophistic tendencies, practical 
effect of, 2 ; teaching, 2, 114 ; 
enquiries, 2 ; influence of, 
views, 311, 338 

Sophists call everything in ques- 
tion, 1 ; Euripides related to 
the better, 16; rationalising 
spirit of, 26 ; avow selfish prin- 
ciples, 28; introduce systematic 
education, 55 ; public teachers, 
67 ; little dependence placed in, 
by Socrates, 66 ; dogmatism 
overthrown by, 112 ; believe 
real knowledge impossible^ 112; 
meet the want of the age with 
skill, 113 ; recognise unsatis- 
&ctoriness of older culture, 114 ; 
caprice of, 116, 117 ; destroyed 
the contending views of natural 
philosophers, 124 ; ignorance 
their leading thought, 124 ; con- 
tests with, 133 ; made education 
a necessary for statesmen, 169 ; 
travellers, 4 ; impart an electri- 
cal shock to their age, 186 ; their 
relation to Socrates, 187, 188, 
333 ; moral teaching of older, 
190; draw philosophy away 
from nature to morals, 191 ; 
failure of, 191 ; their hatred of 
Socrates, 203 ; did not take part 
in his accusation, 203, 205 
small political influence of, 204 
rhetorical display of, 216 
Schools of, 218 ; pernicious in- 
fluence of, 218; corrupters of 
the people, 218 ; arguments of, 
365 ; hold that every object can 
only be called by its own pecu- 


liar name, 296; required pay- 
ment for instruction, 339 ; views 
on knowledge and pleasure, 387; 
diversities of, 387 

Sophistry, a narrower limitalioii 
of Socxates* teaching, 388 ; ten- 
dency to, 387 

Sophocles, illustrating problem of 
philosophy, 6, 10; difference 
between, and ^SSschylus, 12 

Sophroniscus, father of Socrates, 

Sorites, the, of Megarians, 266: 
attributed to Eubulides, 268 

Sparta, 230 

Spartan education, 243 

Spartans, Cyrus the friend of, 

State, the, views of Socrates on, 

Stilpo, a M^;ariaii philosopher, 
260; friend of Thrasymachus, 
252; placed highest good in 
i^)athy, 277; his captiousness, 
277; rejects every combination 
of subject and predicate, 276 ; 
denies that general conceptions^ 
can be applied to individual 
things, 2^ ; an object of won- 
der to his contemporaries, 253 ; 
learnt Cynicism from Diogenes, 
253 ; united teaching of Mega- 
rian and Cynic Schools, 284: 
his free views on religion, 283 

Stoa, Stilpo the precursor of, 253, 
284 ; took the Cynic principles, 
335, 390 

Stobaeus, quotes the words of Dio- 
genes, 308 

Stoicism, an outcome of Cynicism, 

Stoics, hold a standard of know- 
ledge to be possible, 45 ; their 
apathy, 46, 117 ; later philoso- 
phers, 105; consider Socrates 
the inaugurator of a new philo- 
sophical epoch, 100; declare 
personal conviction the standard 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




of truth, 116 ; views of indi- 
vidual independence, 161, 382 
comprehensive system of, 283 
secure freedom by suicide, 319 
in advance of Cyiaics, 381 

Subjective character of the theory 
of Socrates, 116, 117 

Superficial treatment of morals 
by Socrates, 155 

Siivem, theory of, on the scope of 
the « Caouds,' 216 

Symposium of Plato, 101, 210; of 
Xenophon, 74, 79; Plato's de- 
scription of, 215 

fTALTHYBIUS, in Buripides, 18 

Tartarus, received notions re- 
specting, 24 

Teiresias explains birth of Bacchus, 

Test science of truth, 44 

*Theaetetus,'the, 125 

Thebans, Simmias and Cebes two, 

Theodoras called the Atheist, a 
pupil of Aristippus, 342, 376 ; 
not altogether satisfied with 
Arlstippus, 379 ; his pupils Bio 
and Euemerus, 343, 378 ; won- 
tonly attacks pc^ular faith, 367 ; 
considers pleasure and pain 
neither good nor bad in them- 
selves, 379, 383 

Thessaly, visited by Sophists, 4 

Thessalian legend of Poseidon, 26 

Thrasybulus, 211,225 

Thrasymachus of Corinth, 251, 

Thucydides illustrating the pro- 
blem of philosophy, 27 ; a mat- 
ter-of-fact writer, 27 

Timaeus of Plato, 137 

Timon, 265 

Titan in ^schylus, 9, 13 

Tragedians, illustrating the philo- 
sophy of, 4 


Tragedy, Greek, involves a con- 
tradiction, 7 ; analysis of, 5 
Tribon, the, 316 
Trojan War, legend of, 3 

TTNITY, Greek, in Socratic age, 

Utility, the practical test of vir- 
tue, 124 ; with Socrates, 134 

T7IRTUB, Socratic type of, 73 ; 

V Socratic doctrine that virtue 

is knowledge, 140; Socratic 

conception of, 156 ; Cynic notion 

of, 310 

TTTISDOM and Folly, Cynic 
VV ideas of, 313 
Wolf, 215 
Worship of Grod, 1 75 

XANTHIPPE, wife of Socrates^. 

Xenophanes, his doctrine of the 
One, 278 

Xenophon, 179, 239; a pupil of 
Socrates, 212 ; his account of 
Socrates, 72, 73, 76, 89, 91, 137,- 
170, 171, 181, 182, 184, 185, 155, 
116, 159, 161 ;,of the Zcutx6yiov, 
84 ; his * Memorabilia,' 72, 75, 
78, 102, 132, 167, 183 ; objection 
raised by, 80; Symposium, 79, 
74 ; and Plato as authorities, 98, 
99, 100, 101, 102; writings of^ 
98 ; supposed popular pMloso- 
phy of, 99; description chal- 
lenged, 135, 183 ; trae, 161, 181 ; 
on nature, 134 ; agreement with 
Plato and Aristotle, 181 ; vindi- 
cated against Schleiermacher^ 
183 ; Apology of, 205 ; reply to 
charges, 221 ; sketch of an ideal 
raler, 243 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




ZENO, ihe Eleatic, supposed con- 
nection with Socrates, 58, 
269, 270; criticism of, 265, 
Zeno, the Stoic, united two 


branches of Sociatic philoao* 
phy, 253, 283, 284 
Zeno, iEschylus' conception of, 7, 
9 ; Sophocles' conception of, 11 ;. 
Euripides' conception of, 18 




Digitized by VjOOQIC 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Digitized by VjC 'OQIC 

Will 1130 S.S 

3 2044 084 592 666